In the Bakumatsu period, was there any way to identify which clan a person belonged to?

In the Bakumatsu period, was there any way to identify which clan a person belonged to?

Was there any way to identify which clan someone belonged to (other than when they wore their formal wear with their mon/emblem on their attire). In other words did they carry something on their person such as a sword branded with their emblem or distinct clothing that would make them instantly recognisable of that clan?

No, there was no way to tell.

If a confrontation occurred, there were laws that dictated how the parties involved were supposed to announce themselves to each other.

Note that in the period in question the old samurai system was starting to break down.

Also, there were family crests worn on kimono so clan/family/domain affiliation could be discerned but not everyone had a crest. The crest, called a 'mon' was often round and had stylized elements in it. Mitsubishi's trademark comes from the crest of the family that founded the company.

Feudal Japanese society had some famous ninjas and was dominated by the samurai warrior class. Although they made up only about 10 percent of the population, samurai and their daimyo lords wielded enormous power.

When a samurai passed, members of the lower classes were required to bow and show respect. If a farmer or artisan refused to bow, the samurai was legally entitled to chop off the recalcitrant person's head.

Samurai answered only to the daimyo for whom they worked. The daimyo, in turn, answered only to the shogun. There were about 260 daimyo by the end of the feudal era. Each daimyo controlled a broad area of land and had an army of samurai.

Etymology Edit

The name is said to derive from Macauselan (meaning son of Anselan). [7] The following two names are given as the root of the territorial name Buchanan, Mac a Chanonaich (The Son of the Canon) [8] and Buth Chanain (meaning house or seat of the canon). [9]

11th-13th centuries and origins Edit

Traditionally, Clan Buchanan can trace its chiefly line back to Anselan O Kyan who was of the clan Ó Catháin, provincial king of north Ulster (and had his seat in Limavady, Co. Londonderry) who landed in Argyll in 1016. [10] [11] According to this tradition, for his services against the Danes he received from king Malcolm II the lands of Buchanan, which lie to the east of Loch Lomond around the village of Killearn. [12] [13]

During the reign of Malduin, Mormaer (Earl) of Lennox, 1217–1250, Anselan (third of that name) was granted, in 1225, the island of Clareinch. [14] (Clár Inis). He is referred to as 'clericus meus', meaning 'my clergyman'. He is subsequently recorded as Absalom de Buchanan and it is understood that to have this title, there must have been other grants of land in the parish of Buchanan. [15] During the reign of King Alexander II (1214–1249), Gilbert de Buchanan, seneschal to the Earl of Lennox, received, in 1231, a charter confirming Clareinch and other lands in Buchanan. [16] It is from the lands of Buchanan that the Clan name is derived.

However, the traditional account of origin and land derivation along with name establishment is inconsistent with other accounts for the previous period in Ireland as well as extensive DNA information collection and is officially considered to be little more than origin myth. [17] Further proving this account as only myth, a special meeting was held on 23 January, 2021 for the Conveners of the Clan Buchanan Society, International wherein Clan President, David Byrne, informed all present members, ". that origin myth has been in our history books and in our tents forever. Auchmar, in his history of the clan, he was the one who really pushed that forward. and it's the one everyone has clung to. It's a great story. The problem is that it's not accurate. It didn't happen. The yDNA Project, run by Ross Buchanan and. Alex Buchanan (in Tasmania), with all the people who participated in that (including the MacAusleans and Buchanans), there is not a single individual whose DNA matches up with any yDNA in Ireland. The male lines. all shows that the Clan Buchanan was located on the shores of Loch Lomond, in the Auld Kingdom of Alba, well before the year 1000 (CE) and possibly going way beyond that. There is no history evidence that Anselan, the prince, ever existed in Ireland. There's no history books that mention him or support the fact that he even existed. How or why the myth, the origin was created we don't know. so, that changes everything. It means that the Clan Buchanan is an old Scottish clan, not an old Irish clan. That means that our people have been in Scotland, particularly in Stirlingshire and on the shores of Loch Lomond, for thousands of years not 1,000 years."

According to the official publication provided to the Clan Buchanan Society, International, "There is a strong DNA link to the Clan Gregor which seems to indicate a common ancestor around the year 400 C.E." This discovery made through the extensive genetic testing information collected provides further proof of the existence of Clan Buchanan well before any previously thought of origin myth.

14th century and Wars of Scottish Independence Edit

Unenviable William Wallace Link. Sir Maurice Buchanan 10th of Buchanan married Margaret Menteith (also spelt Menteith). Margaret was the daughter of Sir Walter Menteith of Rusky, and granddaughter of Sir John of Menteth, Sheriff of Dunbarton Castle, and Helena daughter of Gartnait, Earl of Mar. Sir John is reputed to have betrayed Sir William Wallace to King Edward I of England on 5 Aug 1305. Sir John was imprisoned by king Robert I but in 1314 "through influence of his sons-in-law Malice, Earl of Strathern Sir Archibald Campbell, of Lochow and Maurice Buchanan, of Buchanan, he was released immediately before the Battle of Bannockburn, where he deported himself valiantly on the part of the Scottish king." [18] Sir John was also a signatory to the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320.

During the Wars of Scottish Independence the Clan Buchanan supported King Robert the Bruce by aiding his escape in 1306, the chief, Maurice 10th of Buchanan, refused to sign the Ragman Roll, and the chief and lairds of the clan (and presumably their clansmen) served under Malcolm the Earl of Lennox. [19] It is tradition and likely given the aforementioned service, but ill-documented, that the clan fought at the Battle of Bannockburn. [20]

During the reign of King David II (1324–1371), undated, at least part of the lands of Buchanan belonged to Sir Gilbert Carrick. [21]

During the reign of Donald Mormaer (Earl) of Lennox (1333–1365), and confirmed by King David II in 1370/71, "Confirmation is of charter by Donald, Earl of Lennox, in favour of Maurice Buchanan, son and heir of late Maurice Buchanan, of that carucate of land called Buchanan with Sallochy, with these bounds ie Akehin up to Aldmarr [Auchmar] just as it descends below the water of Hanerch [Endrick], and the land of Sallochy, with these bounds, from Sallochy all along to Kelg and then it descends to the water of Lochlomon [Loch Lomond], to hold in fee and with the freedom to hold as many courts with jurisdiction of life and limb as he may wish." [22] [23]

15th century, Hundred Years' War and other clan conflicts Edit

Sir Alexander Buchanan, [24] second son of Walter Buchanan of Buchanan, led men of the clan in support of the French against the English at the Battle of Baugé in 1421. It is said that Sir Alexander Buchanan came face to face with the Duke of Clarence and, escaping his thrust, pierced the Duke through the left eye, killing him. [6] Sir Alexander Buchanan however was later killed leading the clan against the English at the Battle of Verneuil in 1424. [6]

The 15th century is a watershed in the evolution of Buchanan heraldry. In the Armorial de Barry, c 1445 [25] the arms of Buchanan (Le sire de bouguenal) are Or (gold/yellow), chevron checky of Azure (Blue) and Argent (silver/white), and the three boars heads erased and erect of Gules (red). The following three events are believed to have resulted in a total transformation in the Chief's arms:

1421 - The Battle of Baugé in which Sir Alexander Buchanan (son of the Chief) killed the Duke of Clarence (second son of King Henry IV of England).

1425 – Execution by James I of Scotland, of his first-cousin, Murdoch Stewart, Duke of Albany, and Murdoch's two older sons for treason.

1443 – Marriage of Isobel Stewart (daughter of Murdoch Stewart) to Sir Walter Buchanan.

The arms described in the Scots Roll, c1455, 'Or, a lion rampant Sable goutty Or within a double tressure flory counter-flory Sable', [26] contain many of the elements of the arms registered by John Buchanan in 1657, the coat of arms we recognise today. The adoption of the double tressure flory counterflory into the Chief's arms alludes to the nearness of the Buchanan chiefly line to that of the Scottish royal line by the marriage of Isobel Stewart. The Chief's 1657 crest (which also is the centrepiece of clan folk's badge) is a hand couped at the wrist holding a ducal cap, which celebrates Sir Alexander Buchanan's slaying of the Duke of Clarence in combat. However, the seal of George Buchanan c1557, 'Three (bear or boar) heads erased', [27] is similar to the 1445 arms.

In the 15th century, a feud broke out between the Buchanan's of Leny [28] and the Clan MacLaren resulting in a full-scale battle. [29] On the day of a fair where the Clan MacLaren were busy buying, selling and enjoying themselves word came that the Clan Buchanan were marching up towards them through Strathyre. There was no time to lose and the Clan MacLaren rushed to arms. The MacLarens had not all come in by the time the Buchanans arrived, however, they were not daunted and attacked the Buchanans. At first, the Buchanans were faring better and drove the MacLarens back. The Chief of MacLarens saw one of his sons cut down and being suddenly seized with battle madness turned and shouted the famous MacLaren battle cry "Creag An Tuirc" and whirling his Claymore rushed furiously at the enemy. His clansmen followed him and the Buchanans were cut down like corn. Only two escaped by swimming the River Balvaig but even they were followed. One was cut down at Gartnafuaran and the second was cut down at a place since known by the circumstance as Sron Laine.

In 1497 Kenneth Mackenzie, 8th of Kintail, Chief of Clan Mackenzie was killed by the Laird of Buchanan. [30]

16th century, Anglo-Scottish Wars and the King of Kippen Edit

During the Anglo-Scottish Wars the Clan Buchanan fought against the English at the Battle of Flodden in 1513 where the chief's elder son Patrick was killed. However, Patrick had already married a daughter of the Earl of Argyll and had two sons and daughters. [6] Later the Clan Buchanan fought against the English at the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547. [29]

John Buchanan, the second son of Walter Buchanan the 14th of Buchanan and uncle of George Buchanan the 15th of Buchanan, became proprietor of Arnprior, and afterwards the noted "King of Kippen", a phrase which originated in a whimsical episode between himself and James V. The story is well retold by Sir Walter Scott in the following paragraph.

When James V travelled in disguise he used a name that was known only to some of his principal nobility and attendants. He was called the Goodman (the tenant, that is) of Ballengiech. Ballengiech is a steep pass that leads down behind the Castle of Stirling. Once upon a time when he was feasting in Stirling, the King sent for some venison from the neighbouring hills. The deer was killed and put on horse’s backs, to be transported to Stirling. Unluckily they had to pass the castle gates of Arnpryor, belonging to a chief of the Buchanans, who had a considerable number of guests with him. It was late, and the company were rather short of victuals, though they had more than enough of liquor. The chief, seeing so much fat venison passing his very door, seized on it and to the expostulations of the keepers, who told him it belonged to King James, he answered insolently, that if James was King in Scotland, he, Buchanan, was King in Kippen, being the name of the district in which the Castle of Arnpryor lay. On hearing what had happened, the King got on horseback and rode instantly from Stirling to Buchanan's house, where he found a strong fierce-looking Highlander, with an axe on his shoulder, standing sentinel at the door. This grim warder refused the King admittance, saying, that the Laird of Arnpryor was at dinner, and would not be disturbed. “Yet go up to the company my good friend,” said the King, “and tell him that the Goodman of Ballengiech is come to feast with the King of Kippen.” The porter went grumbling into the house, and told his master, that there was a fellow with a red beard, who called himself the Goodman of Ballengiech, at the gate, who said he was come to dine with the King of Kippen. As soon as Buchanan heard these words, he knew that the King was there in person, and hastened down to kneel at James's feet and to ask forgiveness for his insolent behaviour. But the King, who only meant to give him a fright, forgave him freely, and going into the castle feasted on his own venison which Buchanan had intercepted. Buchanan of Arnpryor was ever afterwards called the King of Kippen. [31]

17th century, Wars of the Three Kingdoms and loss of the Buchanan Estate Edit

During the Wars of the Three Kingdoms Sir George Buchanan commanded the Stirlingshire Regiment and led the clan at the Battle of Dunbar (1650) on the side of the Scottish Covenanters. [32] He later led the clan at the Battle of Inverkeithing but here he was captured and died in captivity later the same year. [32] It is claimed that in Buchanan's Stirlingshire Regiment "most of his officers, and a good many of the soldiers" were of the name Buchanan, and that at the Battle of Inverkeithing a "vast number of the name Buchanan" died. [33] Other Buchanans involved with the Royalist cause include:

  1. David Buchanan, Royalist soldier captured at Worchester. Transported on the John and Sarah, from Gravesend 13 May 1652 to Boston. [34]
  2. John Buchanan, Royalist soldier captured at Worchester. Transported on the John and Sarah, from Gravesend 13 May 1652 to Boston. [35]

Some Buchanans fought on the side of the Covenanters at the Battle of Bothwell Brig in 1679. One was George Buchanan (1657–1719) (later a magistrate, maltman (whisky distiller) and successful Glasgow merchant), the son of Andrew Buchanan of Gartacharne (a small farm ( 56°03′27″N 4°25′03″W  /  56.057589°N 4.41747°W  / 56.057589 -4.41747 ) 2 km due south-east of Drymen). George was the father of four of Glasgow's most distinguished citizens: George Buchanan of Moss and Auchentoshan (maltman and Glasgow city treasurer and bailie), Andrew Buchanan of Drumpellier (Tobacco Lord and Lord Provost of Glasgow), Archibald Buchanan of Silverbanks and Auchentortie (Tobacco Lord) and Neil Buchanan of Hillington (Tobacco Lord and Member of Parliament for Glasgow district of burghs). [36] [37] These four sons were among the founding members of the charity, The Buchanan Society of Glasgow.

The full scope of Buchanan Covenanters is unknown however,

  1. Alexander Buchanan, Buchlivie, Covenanter, was sent from Tollbooth, 12 Dec 1678, on St. Michael of Scarborough, to Themes for on forwarding to the American plantations. [38]
  2. Andrew Buchanan, Shirgarton, Covenanter, was sent from Tollbooth, 12 Dec 1678, on St. Michael of Scarborough, to Themes for on forwarding to the American plantations. [38]
  3. Gilbert Buchanan, Glasgow, banished to the Indies, 13 Jun 1678. [38]

Regarding the Buchanan Estate (c1681), [39] according to William Buchanan of Auchmar, "The most flourishing condition it has been in, for diverse ages, was upon the last laird's accession to it" (c1652) (by 'the last laird,' he was referring to John Buchanan, son of Sir George Buchanan.) At this time the estate included the Barony of Buchanan, "several lands in the parishes of Killearn, Strathblane, and others in Lennox" (Strablane is likely to be Strathblane which is between the parishes of Killearn and Lennox) "the whole estate of Badindalloch" (in Stirlingshire) and "the estate of Craigmillar in Midlothian". Along with the inheritance of the estate and clan chiefship, there was significant debt. John Buchanan was unwilling to receive his inheritance until his brother-in-law to be, David Erskine, 2nd Lord Cardross, arranged for creditors to accept as payment only a portion of what was owed (a composition). Debt continued to plague John Buchanan, and in about 1680, he and his named successor, Major George Grant (alias Major George Buchanan of that Ilk), sold some of the Highland lands to James Grahame, the Third Marquess of Montrose. It appears that there were other claimants to the Highland lands and as a guarantee that the sale would proceed, John Buchanan offered the Barony of Buchanan as security (an infeftment of real warrandice). It transpired that the sale did not proceed and the Marquess of Montrose became the owner of the Barony of Buchanan and it became the seat of Clan Graham. Prior to the sale, John Buchanan of Arnpryor had been the estate manager for John Buchanan. After the sale, John Buchanan of Arnpryor received a quarter of the estate from the Marquess of Montrose for his services and assistance in evicting the whole estate. (Precisely what his services were and the meaning of "evicting the whole estate" is unclear.)

18th century and Jacobite uprisings Edit

As a unified entity, Clan Buchanan took no part in the Jacobite uprisings of 1715 to 1716 or the 1745 to 1746 uprising. [40] A likely contributing factor was the leadership vacuum resulting from the death of the last Chief in c1681. There is clear evidence of some Buchanans supporting the Jacobite cause (including the reintroduction of the absolute monarchy of the Stuarts) while others were supporting the Government cause (including the continuance of the limited monarchy of the Hanoverians: limited by law and Parliament).

1) Alexander Buchanan, born 1728, son of the Laird of Auchleishie, Callander, Perthshire, Stirlingshire, Jacobite Captain in the Duke of Perth's Regiment, prisoner at Perth, Canongate, Carlisle, ship, and London transported 22 Apr 1747 from Liverpool to the Colony of Maryland on the ship "Johnson", [41] [42] [43]

2) John Buchanan, servant to Alexander Buchanan, resident of Auchterarder, Perthshire, Jacobite in the Duke of Perth's Regiment, prisoner at Auchterarder, Stirling, and Carlisle transported 24 Feb 1747 on the ship "Gildart" to the Colony of Maryland. [44] [45]

3) John Buchanan, brewer from Kilmahog, Callander. Joined the Jacobites and went with them to Crieff. Released. [44] [45]

4) Francis Buchanan, of Arnpryor, Lenny House, Callander. Arrested before battle of Culloden for stockpiling weapons. Tried for high treason and executed at Carlisle 18 Oct 1746. Writing to Philip Webb on 9 Sep 1746, Lord Milton, the Lord Justice Clerk, said of Francis Buchanan that it would be of "more consequence to His Majesty’s Service … to get rid of such a person than to convict 99 of the lowest rank." [45] [46] [47] For further details on whether Francis Buchanan of Arnprior was the chief of the clan, see the section below.

5) Patrick Buchanan, brother of Francis Buchanan of Arnpryor, brewer from Kilmahog, Callander. Joined the Jacobites in the Duke of Perth's Regiment and went with them to Crieff. Tried at Carlisle and acquitted on account of his youth. [44] [45] [48]

6) Thomas Buchanan, brother of Francis Buchanan of Arnpryor. Tried and acquitted on account of his youth. [48]

7) Robert Buchanan, Jacobite Captain in the Duke of Perth's Regiment, son of Baillie Buchanan in Boghastle, Callander. Killed at Culloden. [45] [49]

8) John Buchanan, in Stuart of Appin's Regiment, died in prison. [50]

9) John Buchanan, in Gordon of Glenbuckett's Regiment, from Inverness-shire, assumed died at Culloden. [51]

10) John Buchanan, servant to David Stewart of Ballachallan in Strathallan's Perthshire Horse. Subsequent condition unknown. [52]

11) Duncan Buchanan, prominent Jacobite agent and clerk to Aeneas MacDonald, the banker to Charles Edward Stuart in Paris. He was one of "The Seven Men of Moidart." [53] Subsequent condition unknown. [54]

Government supporters.

A list of Buchanans serving in British Army, Royal Navy or other Government roles at the time of the Jacobite uprisings has yet to be compiled.

1) Andrew Buchanan of Drumpellier, Tobacco Lord and Lord Provost of Glasgow (1740–42). After the Jacobite victory at the Battle of Prestonpans (21 Sep 1745), John Hay, quarter-master of Prince Charles’ Jacobite Army, arrived at Glasgow 25 Sep 1745 with a letter demanding a loan of £15,000. Buchanan and five others were chosen to negotiate with Hay and succeeded in obtaining a reduction to £5,500. [55] On account of Buchanan's zeal in raising new levies on behalf of the government, the Jacobites demanded in December 1745 a special levy of £500 from him. Despite threats of military execution, he replied "they might plunder his house if they pleased, for he would not pay one farthing." [56] [57]

2) Archibald Buchanan of Drummakill (alternate spellings: Drumnakil, Drumakiln and Drumnakiln), overt supporter of the Government, magistrate and militia officer. After the defeat at Culloden on 16 Apr 1746, the escaping William Murray, Marquis of Tullibardine, took refuge in the Loch Lomond house of Archibald Buchanan of Drummakill (husband of Tullibardine's cousin). Depending on the source, Drummakill accepted the surrender of the exhausted Tullibardine, captured him or, in defiance of Highland hospitality norms, betrayed him to the garrison at Dumbarton Castle. Most sources cite the 'betrayal' version of events and advise that Drummakill was forever after ostracised in Scotland. Tullibardine died 9 Jul 1746 as a prisoner at the Tower of London. [58] [59]

Title of the Chief. The two main Clan historians, Buchanan of Auchmar [60] writing in 1723 uses the term ‘Laird of Buchanan’, while Guthrie Smith [61] writing in 1896 uses the term ‘Laird of Buchanan’ to describe the chiefs up to and including Sir Maurice the 10th of Buchanan and then ‘Buchanan of that Ilk’ up to and including Sir George the 15th of Buchanan and thereafter Buchanan of Buchanan. The chief of a Highland clan could be referred to as the ‘Laird of’, meaning the head of the clan (a patrimonial title), [62] e.g. Laird of Buchanan. The title ‘of that Ilk’ was historically used by both Highland and Lowland clans to indicate head or chiefship (again a patrimonial title), e.g. Buchanan of that Ilk. However, in the early 19th century ‘of that Ilk’ fell out of favour with Highland chiefs [63] who adopted a duplication of the patronymic, regardless of the ownership of territory or estate, e.g. Buchanan of Buchanan. Given the current Highland practice, Buchanan of Buchanan is likely to be the preferred contemporary title but for ease of reading and clarity, 'nth' of Buchanan is used in the following paragraphs. Both the spelling Buchanan and Buchannan are used interchangeably in historical documents.

The Chiefs Edit

The first six Clan Chiefs are poorly represented in historical records and are included by some Clan historians and omitted by others. Buchanan of Auchmar and Guthrie Smith commence their respective numbering of Chiefs at a different person and describe a different order and number of Chiefs following Sir Walter 11th of Buchanan. In part this is due to the heir apparent not succeeding to the chiefship before he dies and chiefship passing directly from grandfather to grandchild. The following lineage reconciles Guthrie Smith and Buchanan of Auchmar and their respective numbering is in parenthesis.

1st – Anselan O'Kyan, [64] son of a petty king from Ulster, Ireland, in the service of Malcolm II of Scotland from whom he received a grant of land in Lennox. He married an heiress of Denniestoun and by her had a son, John.

2nd – John, [65] whose son and successor was Anselan.

3rd – Anselan, [66] whose son and successor was Walter.

4th – Walter, [66] whose son and successor was Girald.

5th – Girald also called Bernard, [66] whose son and successor was McBeath.

6th –McBeath (MacBethe/McBeth) McCausland, [66] whose son and successor was Anselan.

7th – Anselan McCausland, [67] [66] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as the 7th Laird of Buchanan and commences his numbering of Chiefs from him.) Seneschal to Earl of Lennox in about 1225 [68] and obtained the charter for the Loch Lomond island of Clareinch (the Clan's call to war and alternately rendered as Clairinch or Clar Innis), had three sons (Gilbert his successor, Methlin the ancestor of the MacMillans, and Coleman the ancestor of the MacColemans). [15]

8th – Gilbert Buchanan, [67] [16] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 2nd Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 8th Chief) whose son and successor was Maurice.

9th – Sir Maurice Buchanan, [16] [69] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 3rd Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 9th Chief) had three sons (Maurice his successor, Allan who married the heiress of Leny and John the first ancestor of the cadets of Auchneiven).

10th – Sir Maurice Buchanan, [16] [69] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 4th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 10th Chief) lived to a considerable age, married the daughter of Sir William Menteith of Rusk and by her a son and successor (Walter).

11th – Sir Walter Buchanan, [69] [70] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 5th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 11th Chief) married Margaret and had three sons (Walter his successor, Alexander who reputedly killed the Duke of Clarence at the Battle of Baugé on 21 March 1421 and who later died in the battle of Verneuil in 1424, and John [Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 12th Chief ] who married Janet the heiress of Leny and was the first ancestor of the cadets of Leny) and two daughters (Elizabeth and Jean).

12th – Sir Walter Buchanan, [71] [24] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 6th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 13th Chief) first married an unidentified women and by her three sons (Patrick his successor and Walter [72] Drumikill and Carbeth) and one daughter. He married secondly to Isobel Stewart.

13th – Patrick Buchanan, [73] [74] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 7th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 14th Chief) married Jonet Cunningham of Galbraith and by her a son (Walter his successor) and a daughter (Anabella). He also had an illegitimate son (Patrick).

14th – Walter Buchanan, [74] [75] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 8th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 15th Chief) married Isobel Graham and by her four sons (Patrick [Guthrie Smith identifies him as 9th Chief but then goes on to advise that the Chiefship passed from Patrick's father to Patrick's son [76] and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 16th Chief [75] ] who married the daughter of the Earl of Argyle and by her had George who succeeded his grandfather John first ancestor of cadets of Arnprior Maurice and Walter first ancestor of cadets of Spittal) and two daughters (Margaret and Elizabeth).

15th – George Buchanan, [75] [76] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 10th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 17th Chief) succeed his grandfather, Walter 14th of Buchanan, in 1526 and died 1560. He first married Margaret Edmonstone and by her a son (John [Guthrie Smith identifies him as 11th Chief but then goes on to advise that the Chiefship passed from John's father to John's son [24] and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 18th Chief [77] who married Elizabeth Livingston and by her had George [77] who succeeded his grandfather) and two daughters (Helen and Susanna). Second he married Janet Cunningham and by her had a son (William first ancestor of the cadets of Auchmar) and a daughter (Margaret).

16th – Sir George Buchanan, [24] [77] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 12th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 19th Chief) succeed his grandfather, George 15th of Buchanan, in 1561, married Lady Mary Graham and by her one son (John his successor) and two daughters (Helen and Susanna).

17th – Sir John Buchanan, [24] [78] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 13th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 20th Chief) known for his frequent travels to foreign nations and other extravagances put the estate into much debt, married Annabel Erskin and by her two sons (George his successor and Walter).

18th – Sir George Buchanan, [78] [79] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 14th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 21st Chief) married Elizabeth Preston and by her a son (John his successor) and three daughters (Helen, Agnes and Jean). Sir George commanded the Stirlingshire Regiment in the Civil Wars of Charles I, fought at the battle of Dunbar, and was taken prisoner at Inverkeithing. He died in prison in 1651.

19th – John Buchanan, [78] [79] [80] (Guthrie Smith identifies him as 15th Chief and Buchanan of Auchmar identifies him as 22nd Chief) married in 1653 Mary Erskine and by her a daughter (Elizabeth). After the death of Mary, he married in 1677 Jean Pringle and by her had a daughter (Janet). When he died in 1682, he left no male heirs. [81] He made two attempts to pass the chiefship to suitable candidates by arranging their marriage to his oldest daughter (Elizabeth). Firstly to Robert Buchanan, Advocate (the son of John Buchanan of Arnprior), and secondly to Major George Grant (details in a following section). In both cases, Elizabeth refused these arranged marriages. Consequently, no arrangement was finalised by which chiefship could be passed on to the descendants of his daughter. [82] He inherited significant debt and during his chiefship, significant parts of the Buchanan Estate were sold, and the final portions of it were lost due to defaulting on creditors. With the lack of male heirs, the direct chiefly line ended at this time.

Current Clan Chief Edit

A petition to claim the chiefship of Clan Buchanan was lodged with the Court of the Lord Lyon in December 2016 and in August 2018 Lord Lyon allowed the petition thus recognising John Michael Baillie-Hamilton Buchanan as the chief of Clan Buchanan. [83] [84] After a gap of 337 years, the clan now has a recognised chief. The Lord Lyon was satisfied that the petitioner:

  • is the senior representative of the cadet branch of the chiefly line known as Buchanan of Leny, and that the remaining cadet branches of the chiefly line namely Buchanan of Auchmar and Buchanan of Spittall, are extinct in law and in fact. (Descendants of Thomas Buchanan of Gartencaber were excluded from consideration because the C15th documents that purport to link him to the chiefly line were demonstrated to be forgeries. [85][86] )
  • has association with the chiefly lands of Strathyre and that these were conferred on him in an unbroken chain of inheritance. In circumstances like this, the "Jeffery" Principle can be applied.

Chiefs’ Burial Ground Edit

Other people with some measure of recognition as chief Edit

The following four people have been cited as chief of Clan Buchanan but none appears to have been formally recognised by the Court of the Lord Lyon (the heraldry court of Scotland). Before addressing the claims to chiefship it is necessary to establish how the office and title of Chief are passed to succeeding generations in Scotland.

Patrilineal Descent. Firstly, the office and title are usually passed patrilineally (from father to child) in descending order of male birth then descending order of female birth, hence the oldest surviving son is the heir presumptive. If the heir presumptive produces no heirs, then on the heir presumptive's death the office and title go to the next younger son, etc., then the eldest daughter, etc. The term ‘cadet’ is used to describe family groups that are descendants of younger sons, thus the oldest surviving son of each generation maintains the main or principal family line, and younger sons establish cadet lines. In the case of the chiefly line of Buchanan, the first recognised cadet was Buchanan of Auchneiven and the last was Buchanan of Auchmar. Cadets can have their own cadets, e.g. Buchanans of Drumpellier, Auchintorlie, Craigend and Hillington are cadets of Buchanan of Leny through Gartacharne. [89] When chiefly line is extinguished, the most recent cadet line to branch off the chiefly line becomes the new chiefly line.

Maintenance of Surname. Secondly the office and title are implicitly linked to the surname, thus a McKay, a Cairns, etc. cannot be chief of Clan Buchanan. In some cases, where the heir is a daughter, arrangements have been made so that her husband and children assume her surname, and thus the office and title can be passed to her offspring. This practice has given rise to the use of compound (hyphenated or ‘double-barrelled’) names. The matter of principal names was established by the Lord Lyon Innes of Learney when in the case of Monro-Lucas-Tooth that he was a Tooth rather than a Monro or Lucas. It is now clearly established that it is the last name that decides the matter. [90] Thus by the Court of the Lord Lyon, a Moodie-Buchanan is considered a Buchanan but a Buchanan-Moodie is considered a Moodie. Further, in the case of a chief as the representer of the family, the surname cannot be a compound surname. [91] [92]

Major George Buchanan (alias Major George Grant) Edit

Neither Guthrie Smith nor Buchanan of Auchmar identify him as a chief (hence why John Buchanan is the last recognised chief) however, Buchanan of Auchmar advises that John Buchanan transferred "his estate to an old comrade of his, Major George Grant, Governor of Dumbarton Castle, with this provision, that the Major should marry his eldest daughter, and assume the name and arms of Buchanan reserving his own life-rent and his lady's jointure, and settling the estate so as to return to Buchanan's heirs-male, and, failing heirs of Grant's own body, to Buchanan's heirs whatsoever ." [39] Despite George Grant never marrying the daughter of John Buchanan, National Archives of Scotland (NAS) records show the legal paperwork for this transfer occurred on 9 Apr 1679. NAS records show that by late 1679, George Grant had assumed the name George Buchanan and that by 28 Aug 1680 he was cited as being Major George Buchanan of that Ilk. (The use of the title, Buchanan of that Ilk, implies that George had taken over the chiefship but it might also imply that John Buchanan was deceased by 28 Aug 1680.) Major George Buchanan never married and by his death had "given up all Buchanan evidences, both the rights and the fortune." [93]

Buchanan of Arnprior Edit

Sir Walter Scott in 1830, cites Francis Buchanan of Arnpryor (alternate spelling: Arnprior), who was executed at Carlisle on 18 Oct 1746 for high treason for his role in the Jacobite uprising, as being the chief of the family Buchanan. [94] Jesse (1846), [95] Fillan (1849), [96] The Scottish Antiquary (1890) [97] and a history of Clan MacNab (1899) [98] cites Francis Buchanan of Arnprior as being the Chief of Clan Buchanan. Francis Buchanan of Arnprior was the grandson of the John Buchanan of Arnprior [99] who was the manager of the estate of John Buchanan of Buchanan (the last recognised Clan Chief who died c1681). Prior to the Chief's second marriage (1677), he had arranged for Elizabeth, the only child of his first marriage, to wed Robert Buchanan, son of John Buchanan of Arnprior, and in due course inherit the Buchanan estate and chiefship – a bond of Tailzie. This marriage did not take place and the arrangement was cancelled. [39] [100] Francis Buchanan of Arnprior married Elizabeth Buchanan, who was the daughter of Janet Buchanan, who was the second daughter of John Buchanan of Buchanan, i.e. Elizabeth was the granddaughter of John Buchanan of Buchanan (the only child of the Chief's second marriage). The Clan historian, William Buchanan of Auchmar, a contemporary of Francis Buchanan of Arnprior, notes that Francis Buchanan owned part of the old Buchanan lands [99] but makes no reference to the supposed chiefship and, if anything, alludes to treachery to John Buchanan of Buchanan by John Buchanan of Arnprior (Francis Buchanan's grandfather). [39] William Buchanan of Auchmar also makes no mention of Francis Buchanan having married the last chief's granddaughter. It is possible that Scott, a historical novelist, simply embellished the facts for literary purposes. Nevertheless, assuming that Scott, et al. are right and the chiefship had passed to Francis Buchanan (possibly via marriage to the heir of the last chief), then Buchanan of Auchmar may have misrepresented the Buchanans of Arnprior to bolster his own claim to the chiefship.

Buchanan of Auchmar claim Edit

Alexander Nisbet in A System of Heraldry Vol 1, 1722, states that 'Buchannan of Lenie' is now the representor of 'Buchannan of that Ilk.' [101] William Buchanan of Auchmar in his history of the clan, published in 1723, details a case that all cadet lines, except one, from George 15th of Buchanan to John Buchanan 19th of Buchanan had expired and on the death of the latter, the chiefship devolved to the cadet line most recently separated from the chiefly line, Buchanan of Auchmar, thus he, William Buchanan of Auchmar, is the chief of Clan Buchanan and that Nisbet is wrong in asserting that Buchanan of Leny is representer of the chiefly line. [102] In Nisbet's (posthumously published) A System of Heraldry Vol 2, 1742, he recognises Buchanan of Auchmar as the successor of the chiefly line. [103] In the 1826 claim for the chiefship by Dr Francis Buchanan-Hamilton, the extinction of both the main chiefly line and the Auchmar line are identified as preconditions to the claim. [104] The later Clan historian, John Guthrie Smith, omits any reference to Buchanan of Auchmar's claim when he details the Buchanans of Auchmar. [105]

William Buchanan. [106] William Buchanan of Auchmar married in 1696 Jean Buchanan and by her three sons (John and Bernard who died before their father, and Alexander his successor) and three daughters (Janet, Katherine and Helen) who survived infancy. William died in 1747.

Alexander Buchanan. [106] Alexander Buchanan of Auchmar married Christine Campbell and by her two sons (William his successor and James who succeeded his brother).

William Buchanan. [106] William Buchanan of Auchmar sold his estate, reserving a right for redemption, he married in 1796 Sarah Bartlet. He died at sea off America the following year.

James Buchanan. [107] James Buchanan sold the right of redemption for the estate of Auchmar. He died without an heir in 1816. This line is now recognised as extinguished. [108]

Buchanan-Hamilton claim Edit

With the expiration of the Auchmar cadet line and in the absence of other contenders, it is claimed that in 1828 that Dr. Francis Buchanan-Hamilton of Spittal, Bardowie, and Leny established his claim as Chief of Clan Buchanan. [104] [107] [109] Francis was the son of Thomas Buchanan of Spittal and Leny (the Leny estate and title were inherited from Thomas’ first wife), and Elizabeth Hamilton of Bardowie. In 1815 Francis inherited his mother's estate and adopted the additional surname of Hamilton. His claim to Clan Buchanan chiefship comes through the Buchanan of Spittal cadet line from the fourth son of Walter 14th of Buchanan. Similar to the Buchanan of Auchmar claim, this implies that any cadet lines from Walter 14th of Buchanan through to John 19th of Buchanan are extinguished. [108] Adams cites the successor to Buchanan of Auchmar as being Buchanan of Leny however, the term Leny here should be read as a territorial designation and not an indication of the cadet line. [110]

Dr. Francis Buchanan-Hamilton. [111] Dr. Francis Buchanan-Hamilton (1762–1829) married Anne Brock and by her a son (John).

John Buchanan-Hamilton. [111] John Buchanan-Hamilton (1822–1903) married (1845) Margaret Seton and had three sons (Francis (1853–1893) who died unmarried and without heir, George (1856–1886) who died unmarried and without heir, and John his successor) and three daughters (Margaret, Ann and Katherine).

John Hamilton Buchanan. [111] John Hamilton Buchanan (1861–1919) married in 1884 Phoebe Elizabeth Brock but appears to have left no heir. This line is now recognised as extinguished. [108] It is noteworthy that John was named John Hamilton Buchanan, thus the Hamilton name adopted by his grandfather became John's middle name. This brought his name in line with the subsequent Lord Lyon ruling on compound names.

External evidence of historic claims Edit

Edinburgh and London Gazettes. An on-line search of the historic Edinburgh Gazette [112] and London Gazette [113] for notices pertaining to ‘laird of buchanan’, ‘buchanan of that ilk’ or ‘buchanan of buchanan’ and the alternate spelling of ‘Buchanan’ reveal no supporting evidence for either the Buchanan of Auchmar or Buchanan-Hamilton claims.

The Buchanan Society. The Buchanan Society maintains and publishes a list of all past and current members by year of joining and membership number, and if provided, the relationship between its members, i.e. daughter of, great-grandson of, etc. The Buchanan Society Handbook 2004 [114] lists

  1. Francis Buchanan of Arnprior as joining (1727, #63). Estate is cited but no special status in the Clan.
  2. William Buchanan of Auchmar as joining twice (1726, #48 and 1730, #123), and his grandson William Buchanan of Auchmar joining once (1794, #256). Both cited their estate but neither cited any special status in the Clan.
  3. Francis Hamilton-Buchanan of Spittal, Bardowie and Leny (1771, #213) his son, John Buchanan-Hamilton of Spittal, Leny and Bardowie (1852, #410) and his grandson, John Hamilton Buchanan (Leny) Chartered Accountant (1882, #480) are likewise members of the Buchanan Society. Again estate and or occupation is listed but nothing to indicate any special status in the Clan.

Public Register of the Lyon Court. The last record in the Public Register of the Lyon Court for undifferenced Arms of Buchanan (i.e., the Chief's Arms) was recorded in 1675. Arms are meant to be rematriculated within a year and a day of succession however, it is common practice that Arms be borne on apparency, that is without matriculating the Arms, for two or three generations, beyond this it may be difficult or impossible to demonstrate heirship. [115] So while there may have been discussions and determinations within the Clan hierarchy regarding the Clan Chief, the claims of neither Buchanan of Auchmar (1723–1816) nor Buchanan-Hamilton (1828–1919) appear to have been ratified in a legal sense.

Despite a lack of evidence in the form of legal notices or recognition by the Lyon Court of either the Buchanan of Auchmar and Buchanan-Hamilton claims, both are known and accepted by contemporary or near contemporary authorities and authors. [116] [117] [118] Noting that part of the Buchanan-Hamilton claim is that the cadet branch of Buchanan of Auchmar is extinct, Buchanan-Hamilton's wider cadet branch of Buchanan of Spittal would be a plausible starting point for search a hereditary claim on the chiefship of Clan Buchanan. However, in the event that a future hereditary claim is made, it is unlikely that the claim can build off either of the two earlier claims (because neither were recognised by the Lyon Court) consequently, it will be necessary to detail the claim back to 1675 and probably much earlier.

The 21st-century clan chief Edit

Unlike the pre-18th-century chiefs, a 21st-century chief is not going to lead their clan in war or demand rents and levies. The experience of other clans is that their 21st-century chief:

  1. adds to the clan's sense of completeness
  2. adds to the perceived prestige of the clan
  3. performs and adds dignity to ceremonial duties
  4. enables the clan to speak with one voice
  5. helps to focus clan effort on matters of clan wide interest
  6. represents clan interests in multi-clan forums
  7. promotes the right use of chiefly arms and associated heraldry
  8. promotes a general awareness and increased use of heraldry by the clan folk
  9. interacts with the clan society in a similar way to how a constitutional monarchy interacts with the elected governments of his or her subjects
  10. appoints lieutenants to represent them when they cannot be present and
  11. uses modern communications to achieve effective (sometimes synchronous) communication between him or herself, the lieutenants and the clan folk.

Early written renderings of the name include Balgquhannen, Balquhannan, Baquhanan, Bochannane, Bochannen, Bohannon, Boquehennan, Boquhannane, Boquhennane, Bowhanan, Bowhannan, Bucchanane, Buchanane, Buchanen, Buchannan, Buchannand, Buchannane, Buchanne, Buchannen, Buchannent, Buchquhannane, Buchquannan, Buchunnuch, Bucquanane, Buquhannan, Buquhannane, Buquhannanne, and Buquannane. More recent spellings include Buckanon, Buchannon, Bocanan, Buchanan etc.

The current seat of Clan Buchanan is Cambusmore. The historic seat of the Clan is Buchanan Auld House in Stirlingshire. Buchanan Castle was built in the 19th century as a replacement for Buchanan Auld House, after the surrounding lands had passed to the Grahams in the late 17th century. Other castles and monuments of the Clan Buchanan have included: Craigend Castle and Dunglass Castle (Dunbartonshire) Northbar House (Renfrewshire) and the Buchanan Monument at Killearn.

The cadet branches in order of separation from the chiefly line: Leny, Drummikill, Arnprior, Spittal, and Auchmar.

The Septs of Clan Buchanan derive from the first Auselan to use the surname Buchanan, Gilbert, whose father had obtained the Buchanan lands, and his brothers Colman and Methlan, grandson Maurice, and great-grandson Walter. [5]

Calman, Colman*, Cormack*, Cousland*, Dewar*, Dove*, Dow*, Gibb*, Gibbon*, Gibson*, Gilbert, Gilbertson*, Harper*, Harperson*, Leavy*, Lennie*, Lenny*, MacAldonich*, MacAlman*, MacAslan*, MacAslin*, MacAuselan*, MacAuslan*, MacAusland*, MacAuslane*, MacAlman*, MacAlmont*, MacAmmond*, MacAsland*, MacChruiter*, MacCalman, MacColman*, MacCormack*, MacCubbin*, MacCubbing*, MacCubin*, MacGeorge*, MacGibbon*, MacGreuisich*, MacGubbin*, MacInally*, MacIndeor*, MacIndoe*, MacKinlay*, MacKinley*, MacMaster*, MacMaurice*, MacMurchie*, MacMurchy*, MacNeur*, MacNuir*, MacNuyer*, MacQuattie*, MacWattie**, MacWherter, MacWhirter*, Masters*, Masterson*, MacCaslin*, Morrice*, Morris*, Morrison*, Murchie*, Murchison*, Richardson*, Risk*, Rush**, Rusk*, Ruskin*, Spittal*, Spittel*, Walter*, Walters*, Wason*, Waters*, Watson*, Watt*, Watters*, Weir*, Yuill*, Yool*, Yule*, Zuill*.

  • Asterisked (*) sept names are sourced from Scots Kith & Kin. 1900. Edinburgh: Albyn Press, Ltd. for Clan House, Lindsay & Co. Ltd., s.d. (c1960, reprint of 1900 first edition). 94 pp. + fold-out map.
  • Asterisked (**) sept names are sourced from: [119]

There are three contemporary organisations that represent Clan Buchanan.

The Buchanan Society Edit

The Buchanan Society is a purely charitable organisation established in 1725 in Glasgow, Scotland, for the needy of the Clan for four “approved” Septs of the Clan: Buchanan, McAuslan, McWattie and Risk. The foundation of the Society featured the great trading houses of the Clan but from all corners of the globe, contemporary clan folk and friends of the Clan of all professions and occupations support this charity. The Society is funded by an entry fee paid by each member of the Society, gifts and interest from investments. Its original charter specified charity to those of the name Buchanan and recognised septs by assisting boys to trades and those of promising genius at their studies to university. Except that girls are now eligible for assistance, the goals have remained largely unchanged. The Society has been given many Clan heirlooms. The books, records and other collections of the Society are held at the Mitchell Library, Glasgow, and Strathclyde University Library. [120] The Society also owns the Buchanan Monument in Killearn, and the Loch Lomond island of Clairinch. [121]

Clan Buchanan Society International Edit

The Clan Buchanan Society International (CBSI) is a mutual interest society established in 1970 at the Grandfather Mountain Games in North Carolina to promote the celebration of being a Buchanan. [122] Membership is by annual subscription and is greatest in the US, but as the organisation matures, new chapters are being established around the world, especially in the Oceania region.

The CBSI Black Lion Banner. [123] CBSI uses the coat of arms granted by the Lyon Court in 2002 on its official correspondence however, it uses a self-assumed coat of arms which predate the granted arms on its flag, which is called the Black Lion Banner. The Black Lion Banner has a field of gold/yellow charged with a black lion rampant with red claws and tongue shedding five silver tears all within a black double tressure flory-counter-flory. (This might be described in heraldic language as, "Or, a lion rampant Sable, armed and langued Gules charged with five goutte Argent all within a double tressure flory-counter-flory of the second.") The lion rampant on the field of gold within the double tressure flory-counter-flory alludes to the arms of the Clan chief and is the charge and tressure of most Buchanan arms. The silver tears refer to the sadness [124] of the Clan at not having a chief. A variation of the Black Lion Banner is used on some CBSI apparel.

Chief’s Council of Armigers Edit

A Chief's Council of Armigers is being considered and is likely to be established at the Chief's inauguration in 2022. Its aim is to optimise the strategic leadership of the Clan in order to promote Clan interests globally with due regard for tradition, Scottish law, and contemporary needs and opportunities. The Council would subscribe to the view that the principal interest of the Clan is not power, influence, glory, history, heraldry nor even honour, per se rather, it is the encouragement of the clan folk to learn, enjoy and celebrate their unique Buchanan, Highland, Scottish heritage. It is against this interest that the Council's efforts are to be evaluated.

The Lord Lyon King of Arms has now recognised a new chief of the Clan Buchanan. [125]

In August 2018 Michael Buchanan was confirmed by Lord Lyon, King of Arms, head of the Lyon Court in Scotland as Chief of the Name and Arms of Buchanan. He is the first Chief of the Clan in 337 years.

The Buchanan, John Michael Buchanan of that Ilk and Arnprior, was born on 14 September 1958. He is the son of John Neil Buchanan Baillie-Hamilton of Arnprior and Hon. Caroline Barbara Barrie. Michael married The Lady Buchanan, Paula Frances Hickman M.D., daughter of John Hickman, on 22 October 1994. He graduated from Oxford University, Oxford, Oxfordshire, England, with a Master of Arts (M.A.) Michael is the manager of Cambusmore Estate in the Southern Highlands near Callander. [126]

The sept Masterson was Irish, the Scottish sept of Buchanan is spelt Masterton. [ citation needed ]

Leonardo da Vinci: Early Career

Da Vinci received no formal education beyond basic reading, writing and math, but his father appreciated his artistic talent and apprenticed him at around age 15 to the noted sculptor and painter Andrea del Verrocchio, of Florence. For about a decade, da Vinci refined his painting and sculpting techniques and trained in mechanical arts. When he was 20, in 1472, the painters’ guild of Florence offered da Vinci membership, but he remained with Verrocchio until he became an independent master in 1478. Around 1482, he began to paint his first commissioned work, The Adoration of the Magi, for Florence’s San Donato, a Scopeto monastery.

However, da Vinci never completed that piece, because shortly thereafter he relocated to Milan to work for the ruling Sforza clan, serving as an engineer, painter, architect, designer of court festivals and, most notably, a sculptor. The family asked da Vinci to create a magnificent 16-foot-tall equestrian statue, in bronze, to honor dynasty founder Francesco Sforza. Da Vinci worked on the project on and off for 12 years, and in 1493 a clay model was ready to display. Imminent war, however, meant repurposing the bronze earmarked for the sculpture into cannons, and the clay model was destroyed in the conflict after the ruling Sforza duke fell from power in 1499.

How to Find The Origin Of Your Last Name

This article was co-authored by our trained team of editors and researchers who validated it for accuracy and comprehensiveness. wikiHow's Content Management Team carefully monitors the work from our editorial staff to ensure that each article is backed by trusted research and meets our high quality standards.

This article has been viewed 122,205 times.

Last names, also called surnames, have been in existence since the thirteenth century. They originated as a way to identify people by their family, country of origin, and in some cases, personality or physical appearance. You can find the origin of your surname by determining if it is patronymic or matronymic, derived from a father’s or mother’s name. It can also be occupational, based on what your ancestors did for a living, or geographic, based on where your ancestors lived. Some surnames are also descriptive, originating from nicknames given to your ancestors. If you’d like to skip all this research, you can use a genealogy service or talk to older relatives to find the origin of your last name.

Marcus Attilius

Grafitti preserves the names of a number of gladiators from Pompeii and Herculaneum. Aside from the gladiator Celadus, who we know from graffiti from the House of the Gladiators in Pompeii, various other names appear in cartoons depicting the outcomes of fights which fans of the games scratched into the tombs that lined the roads leading into and out of Pompeii, particularly around the Nucerian gate. There is Princeps (the chief) and Hilarius (Merry). These single names are the stage names of otherwise anonymous slaves forced to fight in the arena. However, the name of one fighter stands out.

Marcus Attilius was a gladiator, but his name shows us he was no slave. ‘Marcus&rsquo was the praenomen of a free man and Attilius his gens or clan name. Attilius&rsquos freeborn status means he had entered the arena of his own free will he had, in the word&rsquos of Livy, &ldquoput his life&rsquos blood up for sale.&rdquo However, while the occasional Roman aristocrat might take part in a novelty bout (The emperor Commodus, in particular, liked to fight under the name Hercules the Hunter), volunteering to compete for a ludus was quite a different matter.

For although gladiators were the rock stars of the Roman people, heartthrobs, and heroes of the masses, they were also tainted with the stain of death. To fight as a volunteer, a free man was taking on that stain. When he signed a contract with the ludus, he not only gave up the next few years of his life but also his honor-permanently. He was also giving up his freedom because for the period of the contract, the ludus essentially owned him. For a man to do give up all this, they had to be desperate not for fame but for money.

The match cartoons tell us a great deal about Marcus Attilius, the gladiator. We know that he won his very first fight in the arena, during games in Nola. A ‘T&rsquo for Tiro&ndash a novice gladiator, after Attilius&rsquos name indicates this. Attilius was fighting a seasoned veteran of the arena, Hilarious, who, the numerals after his name show had fought 14 matches and won 12. However, on this occasion, the V for vicit came after Attilus&rsquos name. Hilarius instead had to settle for an M for Missus, which means that even though he lost the match, he did not lose his life.

Attilius&rsquos next fight was against another veteran Felix who had won all his previous 12 contests. However, Felix&rsquos luck ran out when he encountered Attilius in the arena. He too is marked as a reprieved loser. So how could Attilius go from being an unseasoned novice to beating two veteran gladiators? Given his evident skill with the sword, Attilius was most likely an ex-solider fallen upon hard times. Volunteers were often ex-army men who could not make a living in civilian life. They had no trade but blood, and the discipline and comradeship of gladiator schools were very similar to that of the military life.

We know Attilius fought as a murmillo from the armor he wore in cartoons. However, we do not know what he looked like- unlike our next Pompeian citizen.

Social relations in the Paleolithic period

The knowledge of the Palaeolithic social organization, especially Upper and Middle Palaeolithic are very scarce, and superficial. That is why stages, in which different forms of social lives were developed, are much more difficult to determine than the stages of human evolution. It is undisputed that the initial forms of coexistence and organization came from natural animal communities. First forms of social life, in which the human consciousness and intelligence matured, had to be the simplest and it had to have more in common with the family than with the extended human community.

The social community was, and still today is a necessity for the survival of man as an individual.

Without it, the human spiritual forces would never mature. For clarification of the social life beginnings, it can be used knowledge’s to which we came by comparing human habits with the habits of great apes. For example, the African gorillas and chimpanzees live normally throughout the year in related groups from 12 to 20 monkeys. One or more adult males are rulers of a group. There is no doubt that the period of helplessness, immaturity of man’s young descendants is very long. This period is of vital importance for the development of the community in general.

After Homo sapiens ancestors left the dense forest, and started to hunt on more opened terrain, after that followed a popularization of human groups. This led to an increased social cooperation. Each individual by living in trees was able to collect food, but just for him.

However, hunting of wild animals, especially if undertaken as a joint venture, was much more successful and far more useful for the wider human community, especially in terms of establishing and building relationships.

Living scene in Paleolithic period

Archaeological materials show that at the beginning of the quarterly period, in some places, lived completely isolated group of people, and they lived on their own, in special life and work conditions. The most convincing evidence for this, is the mutual similarity of the oldest tools for work, found in France, Africa, China, Armenia, etc., which also explains the unity of the man origin, and human society.

Advances in the development of tools during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic were modest and not so great. Because of this, people who just separated themselves from the animal kingdom were not able to live or work separately, because constantly they were in danger of wild animals in whose environment they lived. Providing food, making tools, preserving of how to make tools and passing experience to the young generation is unthinkable without human collective. The most capable ones were, in any case, senior members of the human groups that usually performed as organizers of the work.

Tools and weapons production technique in Old stone age

The first human groups numbered 20 to 40 people. They were called hordes. Living in hordes, man had inherited from its ancestors who were in half-animal state, helpless and rough towards forces of nature, and they did not know its own capabilities. Because of all this, paleolithic people were very poor and they were like animals, but they were slightly more productive than animals were. This life was far more similar to an animal life. Difficult and not favourable conditions of life, then a low level of productive forces development, and very low labour productivity influenced the emergence of cannibalism as well as the frequent mutual bloody battles that have occurred because of unregulated sexual relations within a horde. Therefore, it can be said that very primitive consciousness is a basic characteristic of every human member of the first human collective that was called hordes.

Hordes of an paleolithic people lived separately i.e. independently of each other, constantly wandering in search of food. From the very beginning, hordes were significantly different from monkeys, especially in terms of its compactness. Compactness was necessary to them for at least two reasons. First reason is due to the necessary collective protection of wild animals, and the second reason was joint conducting of activities.

An indispensable condition for human life in the horde was a work that in spite of all its shortcomings brought into the horde first elements of the organized economy. Regular working activity, depending on its complexity, brought very important and major changes in the relationships between members of the hordes.

In time, paleolithic people, in addition to plant food started to show an increasing need for meat food, so they gradually perfected the habits of collective hunting. Hunting, in relation, to collecting economy, engaged far more people for development of new tools, for developing of endurance and resistance, for stronger connection between members of the Hordes and a definitive separation of man from the animals.

The main characteristic of the period, when first human communities were developed, is greater unity of hordes and powerful connection of their members, which all together is a result of work. Hordes of Neanderthals usually numbered from 50 to 100 people. These were separate, environmental and production unit, which characterized the beginnings of permanent residence in one place, a common fireplace, and joint living quarters and at the end a collective work. That is how an people in Old stone age united and therefore made the horde more closed and isolated from other human groups.

Hand axe of Neanderthal man. Image source:

One of the factors that had great influence on the formation and development of human community was related to the sex drive in men and in women. In the paleolithic period, human sexual relations were totally chaotic and mixed or as people usually say sexual relations were available to everyone.

At the time, sexual intercourse between man and woman was completely unregulated. Each woman belonged to every man and vice versa. This form of marriage relations was called promiscuity (promiscuus – blended, available to everyone) or a group marriage. Paleolithic people entered in marriage only with the members of the horde.

This is so-called endogamy or marriage within the same group. Marital relations were managed based on a biological instinct inherited from animals. There were not any marital restrictions between parents and children, brothers and sisters. Paleolithic people did not recognised blood relations, nor did they pay attention to blood relation.

With a later evolution of human consciousness, a new form of marriage relations have been created, so-called polygamy, i.e. marriage between one man and several women, and then monogamy, which is a marriage between one man and one woman. Evolution of the marital relationship has been developed side by side with practice of exogamy or marrying outside the group of an individual, or other social group. The habit of seeking a spouse outside of the main group, with time has become a custom, and later social and moral law. Those who did not abide by those laws were labelled as sinners and guilty people, and they were banned, based on that, out of the community.

Matriarchy – maternal authority, characterize the oldest period in the development of the first people community. It coincides with the period of so-called collecting economy in which women played a central role. She collected and prepared foods, and took care and raised children. She also took care of shelter-home, fire, clothes and so on. Woman was the centre of the humankind, the main pillar of the family. That is why relation between family members as well as the inheritance law went through the female line, because it was group marriage.

Example of hunting scene in Old stone age.

The term matriarchy, in the scientific terminology, was accepted conditionally, because woman and mother never had this kind of power in the family and society, which later, in patriarchy, achieved man. However, it is possible to say that her position, until patriarchy came to the scene, was the same, i.e. an equal to the position of man. Matriarchy was held until transition to a new branch of business, agriculture and cattle breeding. During that period, men took a leading role in ensuring food. At the same time, this is how new form of organization of society was established. This new form of society organization is called patriarchy in which the man – father had all the power in the family or wider community. Blood relation and the inheritance law solely went through father.

During the Middle Paleolithic period, there was a noticeable increase in the productive forces, and production relations, with this in regard came evident exogamy. All these positive developments have significantly influenced the transformation of the horde in the so-called higher family group whose main unit was gender or gens.

Gender is organized sociology-economic group of people. All descendants of one ancestor belonged to this group. The process of transformation of the first horde into gens went quite slowly. Namely, the creation of the gender preceded the creation of clans in which the origin was observed from the mother’s line. One gens had minimum 6 people and about maximum 60 people. Increased awareness of blood relation has grown not only based on physical, but also economic and social unity of the community, or gender. All damage and deleterious effects of mixing blood has finally been surpassed with development of gender. Almost without exception, the clans and genders are exogamous, while marriage within them was considered incest.

Sometimes the choice of a husband or wife was closely confined on to the young man and woman of a special relative group within the relevant clan. Collective work dominated in every gen. Settlements that were built near the hunting grounds point out, among other things, to the conclusion that there was a so-called tribal territory. Tribal territory was essential to economic activity, such as hunting and gathering of plant products. All members of the tribal community had an access to the results that were achieved by working together.

Scottish History

From earliest times it was the custom of nations, clans and families to adopt a symbol which, when borne upon standard or shield, furnished an easy method of distinguishing different units or individuals from one another in the confusion of battle. In medieval times, the science of heraldry was based on this custom. As long as men fought with their faces bared, there was no problem distinguishing one from the other. However, when complete armor was adopted and men could no longer see their friends and antagonists’ faces, they were forced to adopt distinguishing marks by which they were easily identified in battle and in peace. These marks or symbols were usually worn on helmets, shields and banners. On the helmet it was called a crest on the shield it was called a charge on the banner it was the symbol of the family, or clan or nation. Each family, clan or individual had its own symbol by which it was known. In ancient times, a badge or symbol was a sacred thing, and for a tribe or family to adopt the symbol of another was an act of dishonor. From medieval times to the present, the symbol of Clan Forsyth has been the Griffin, a mythological winged creature, with the head of an eagle and the body of a lion.

The symbol of Clan Forsyth – the Griffin

In feudal times, to prevent repetition and confusion among the wearers of coats-of-arms, as the marks or symbols were called, special schools and colleges whose business was to know and keep record and order among the innumerable markings of the nobility developed. The lions of England and Scotland, the lilies of France, and the eagles of Germany are derived from these markings, and every knight and noble family had their own special bearings or symbols, coats-of-arms and crests by which they were known.

In the beginning, arms or symbols were assumed simply as a distinguishing mark. Later when they became more complex, they were given for some deed or as an honor especially conferred. Strictly speaking, a coat-of-arms is hereditary and belongs to the head of a family, or with certain manifestations, to his immediate kin. The crest or badge can be borne by any of the blood of the family.

The ancient history of the Forsyth family can be traced, not only by the name, of which there are several variations, but also by its symbol the Griffin.


Among the greatest nations descending from the Aryan or white race, whose original home was the great central plateau of Asia, from which it wandered south and north and west, were the Gothic and Teutonic tribes. From these tribes came the Franks, the Norsemen and others, including the Scots. The name of Scot is derived from the saint called Saint Skint, but the name Scot also means man of the North or Northman. Gothic comes from the word Cat or Got, meaning a man of war. The Scots, like their brethren of the North Aryan race, were tall with hazel, gray and blue eyes, brown and yellow hair, very fair complexioned, and were of the purest Gothic Aryan blood. They belonged to the Scandinavian division of Teutonic stock.

Among the Scandinavian people, the most important event from the dim prehistoric past was the arrival of Odin. According to historians, Odin was the chief of a Scythian tribe of warriors, which immigrated from the East and fought its way North, passing through Germany into Scandinavia. Through superior intelligence, skill and bravery, Odin brought the natives into subjection and established a kingdom. He made an alliance with the King of Sweden, and the Romans never conquered his kingdom. Odin is thought to have reigned about 70 B. C. Most likely Odin was a great and wise ruler, who of necessity in such an age was also a great warrior and statesman who organized his people and gave them laws and permanently established them. After his death, tradition, following its usual course, built about his memory a mass of attributes that in the course of years became divine, and finally caused him to be worshipped as a god. To Odin was attributed the invention of Runic writing and poetry and a knowledge of astronomy and the arts, sciences and magic. He became the personification of all that was heroic, wise and good, and according to the ideals of his people, the predominant ideal figure of his race, its god. This was the normal course of mythology and tradition among races in their infancy before the dawn of letters in Greece and Rome.

The symbol of Odin was the raven. It was also the symbol of the wild, marauding Norsemen of ancient times. From this symbol comes the black eagle used in the arms of Germany, Austria and Russia.


The name Forsyth is first found in the Mythology of Odin. Balder, called “The Beautiful and Good,” was the son of Odin and his wife, Frigge. He was worshiped as a beautiful, youthful warrior, whose wisdom and valor were as well known as his beauty and goodness. To Balder and his wife Nannie, was born a son, Forsite, “The Just.” He was known as the honorable and honored one. He is said to have been king of that part of Northern Europe known as Friesland, where his palace, Glyner, was celebrated for its magnificence and for the fact that no petitioner was turned away without a hearing and without receiving justice. His reign was noted for peace and harmony.


The symbol of Forsite, Forsate, Forsath, Forsyth, as it is variously spelled, the son of Balder, was the griffin, a fabulous creature, winged, with the head of an eagle and the body of a lion. The symbol of the griffin denotes vigilance and strength. The race whose badge was the griffin controlled the areas later known as Friesland and Denmark.

In Scottish history, one of the royal races that came from Scandinavia into Scotland bore the griffin as its symbol. In an old history of Scotland, one of the conquering Gothic clans from Scandinavia settling in Scotland in the second century was known from the standard of their chiefs bearing the symbol of the griffin. They were known as the men of the griffin race.

In the early history of the Forsyths in Scotland, they were known as the race of the Griffin because they bore the griffin as the symbol of their race. According to the ancient law of heraldry the griffin which adorns the frontispiece was exclusively the badge or symbol of Forsite or Forsyth, who first adopted it, and his descendants. The designation by this badge or symbol from generation to generation during a time when one family held a symbol, is excellent proof of descent when there were no surnames. In later times, contrary to ancient usage, others assumed the use of the symbol of the griffin. However, during the reign of Henry III a law was promulgated prohibiting families from adopting, a symbol previously used by another. By this law no one could assume a badge or arms without the king’s permission. This law restored the ancient law of heraldry.

The idea of the griffin goes back to classic times, and was well known to the Greeks and Romans. The crest of the Forsyths is a demi-griffin rampant. The demi part of animals alone was worn on crests, because it is impossible to wear the entire animal on a crest. On the shield the entire griffin was displayed. The arms of the family is three griffins rampant verde on a field argent, a chevron engrailed gules.


From the race that bore the griffin as their emblem, came Ethod, brother of Eugenius, King of the Scots. His son was Ertus, who married Rocha, daughter of Roderic, Lord and Prince of Denmark. Roderic had a son Fergus who assisted Alaric, King of the Goths, at the taking of Rome in 410 A. D. Fergus was later crowned King of the Scots as Fergus II. A younger son Roderic was brought up in Denmark and educated at the Royal Danish Court. He married a daughter of a Frankish noble of Austrasia. He bore on his shield the griffin, and his crest was a demi-griffin. His grandson was Arnulf, born near Nancy about 580. He married a daughter of the duke of the Franks of Austrasia. After her death he became bishop of Metz in 614. One of his sons was Ansighis, who married Begga, daughter of Pepin de Landin, mayor of the palace. His estate or lordship was known as Heristal. His son was Pepin de Heristal, father of Charles de Heristal (Charles Martel), who was one of the greatest administrators and warriors of his age, from 732 to 771. His power, based on the sword alone, extended from the Rhine to the Loire. He married Chrutude, and founded the great dynasties of the Carolings. Two sons, Pepin and Carloman, received equally the kingdom.

Charles Martel married second Sonahilda, the daughter of the Duke of Bavaria. One son, Roderic, was born in 726. He was called Grippo and surnamed the Griffin because he carried the figure of the griffin on his shield. When he grew to manhood, as a warrior he bore the demi-griffin crest, while his two half-brothers bore the crest of the kings and princes of the Franks, whose estates they inherited.

When Mattel died, Grippo received only a small part of the estate because the church did not consider his mother’s marriage an ecclesiastic one, even though it was within the customs of the Franks. Grippo objected and claimed an equal share as a prince of the royal blood. His half-brothers had him imprisoned in a castle in the Ardennes to prevent a realization of his claim. Fortunately he escaped and went to Friesland, now North Holland, where he was warmly welcomed because the people there still held in high esteem his ancestor, Forsite. It was there Grippo sought allies to regain his rights, and the Frieslanders were the first to give him aid. Idile, a Danish chieftain, and also a duke of the Bavarians, resented what he considered an insult to his relative the mother of Grippo, and he was determined to avenge it. During the contention there was some fighting, after which an agreement was made in which the half-brothers of Grippo gave him the government of twelve counties de Mansond, with the rank of Lordship de Mansond. However, spies surrounded him, and fearing he would be imprisoned, in 751, he went to Aquitaine. Three years later he attempted to join an army of the Lombards that had arisen against the Franks.

In the meantime Carloman had entered a monastery and handed over his ducal rights to his brother, Pepin, who became the sole duke of the Franks. Pepin recruited his army from great warriors of the North to fight the Saxons and Lombards. Among these warriors was Fionnlock (Fion of the Lake), whose name is preserved in Fionne, an island off the coast of Denmark. Fionnlock was a royal Scottish chieftain who had gone to France to aid Martel. He was a relative of King Achaisus of Scotland, and one of the Scottish Auxiliaries among the Franks at this time. He was with the army that Pepin sent under two generals to intercept the army of the Lombards that Grippo had joined. He also bore the demi-griffin crest of his race.

The encounter between the two armies took place at Maurienne. Fionnlock was a friend of Grippo, and in the conflict, he saw the Grippo’s griffin symbol and tried to rescue him from his enemies. The numbers were against Fionnlock and Grippo was killed. Other ties bound these two men. Fionnlock’s young daughter had married Grippo, whose death now left the widow with two little children in poverty and distress.

When Pepin died in 768 he left two sons, Charles and Carloman. Carloman survived his father by three years. Following Carloman’s death, Charles became sole king of the Franks. The reign of Charlemagne, the great Frankish lord, who in fact and legend filled the world, now begins. One of his first acts was to appoint councils to inquire into the condition of his people–nobles, clergy, merchants and peasants. News came to him of Grippo’s princely family. He learned of the courage and honor of Fionnlock, and of his daughter, Grippo’s widow, and of her two promising sons. His heart was touched and he took them under his care, adopting them as his nephews. They were often called his sons, but it would have prejudiced his own sons’ claims to divisions of the empire had he adopted them as sons. It was a stroke of policy since it excluded their claims on the empire that might have been derived from descent from their father, Prince Roderic (Grippo). The elder son, Roland or Ronald, became the greatest of the emperor’s paladins, and duke of the marshes of Brittany. He bore the demi-griffin crest. In the annals of chivalry, he was called the flower of ancient chivalry, and his exploits were painted by the poets. The second son, whose name was Forsyth, was born in 753. He was named from the Gothic prince Forsite, from whom he was descended. Forsyth became a count of the empire, and he and Roland both bore the griffin inherited from their father, Grippo, and as paladins and counts of the empire, they also bore the double eagle symbols of imperial office. Roland married a niece of Charlemagne, while Forsyth married a daughter of the Duke of Aquitania in 810.

When Charlemagne was fighting the Saxons near Padderburn about 780, Roland and Forsyth were with him, and rendered valuable service. In 786 Charlemagne built a castle on the hill of Fronsac, twenty miles northeast of Bordeaux. He called it Forsyth in honor of his adopted nephew and of their common ancestor, the ancient King Forsite. He made it the capital of the district and appointed Forsyth as its defender. He gave Forsyth the herald lordship of the castle, the first Vicomte de Fronsac. Forsyth’s descendants became the lords of the castle, the imperial Vicomtes of Fronsac. Possession of the title in the eldest male line continued down to the eleventh century. The castle was one of the most powerful of Western France. The Emperor and the Franks had conquered the Saxons, and the castle was built as a restraining influence against them.

Fronsac was an ancient district in Aquitaine. It bordered on the river Dordogne. Its history reaches back to the Roman period. Hagaman Forsyth de Fronsac, a great grandson of the first Forsyth of the castle, was chief of stall of the Emperor, Charles the Simple, and his last legal adviser. He defeated all the enemies of the empire when Charles was betrayed by them, but later in 924, when they succeeded in defeating Charles, Hagaman was deprived of his rank, after which he retired to Forsyth castle. Because of his influence, Aquitaine refused to recognize the change of dynasty.

Grimwald Forsyth, the great grandson of Hagaman, was the last of the Forsyth name to hold the castle. He married Marie de Montenac about 1010, and they had four daughters and one son.

Before the eleventh century the Forsyths of Fronsac and the Tailefer families, who were counts of Angoulene, had intermarried. In 1030, Guillanone de Tailefer married the eldest daughter of Grimwald Forsyth and claimed one-third of the Fronsac estates as his wife’s dowry. Party feuds to get possession followed between the daughters as claimants of the castle and estates. One of them occupied the castle against the wishes of the king, who was the arbitrator of their disputes. The young son of Grimwald was deprived of his right of succession, and the castle passed into the female line. In the eleventh century, during the contention for possession between the claimants, the castle was partially destroyed.

In the fifteenth century when the English were at war with the French under command of the Earl of Derby, they invaded Aquitaine, and in their course captured the castle. Shortly afterward it was completely demolished. Some time later a new castle was built by one of the Richelieus under the name Chateau Fronsac.

The second daughter of Grimwald Forsyth married Comte de Albert, the third Seig Caumont and the fourth Prince de Rohan. The descendants of these families held the castle and the Fronsac title for several centuries, and it was from these descendents, after 1472, came the following succession: Odet de Aydie, Vicomte de Fronsac of the princely house of Fix. Vicomte de Lantrac recognized by the King in 1472 as Vicomte de Fronsac, Jehan de Rohan, Seig. de Gie Marshall of France and Vicomte de Fronsac in 1491. His cousin, Jacques De Albret Marshall, of the princely house of Navarre, succeeded him. The king made him Comte de Fronsac in 1551. His cousin, Antoine de Lustract, was Marquis de Fronsac in 1555. During this time the family of de Caumont Duc La Force were bearing the title of Comte de Fronsac, having inherited the title from Rohan or Albret.

The title next passed to the Royal Bourbons in the person of Francis de Orleans Longueville, Comte de St. Poi, a descendant from a branch of the Valois family. He was a relative of King Henry of Navarre, who in 1608 raised the title to a ducal peerage, Duc de Fronsac. Armand Jean de Plessis Duc de Richelieu revived a claim to the title after the death in 1631 of Orleans St. Poi without direct heirs, and as Cardinal and Prime Minister of France attained a new patent in 1634. He claimed the duchy through his grandmother, a Rochelrouart, a descendant of Forsyth. At Richelieus’ death the title passed to Louis de Bourbon, Prince de Conde.

In 1646 his sister, the Princess de Conde, the next heir, became Duchess de Fronsac, and at her death the title passed to her cousin, Duc de Richelieu, with whose descendants it remained until the Revolution when the Chateau Fronsac castle was finally destroyed by the revolutionists.

While the castle and title were held in the female line there were times when different families in the succession were claiming the name Fronsac at the same time, but under different titles. It is believed that each branch of the family, the Vicomte, Comte, Marquis and Duchy, had a legal right to bear the title at the same time. The title of Vicomte de Fronsac of the Forsyths is imperial from Charlemagne, while that of Comte de Fronsac is from a grant from the royal house of Capet Marquis was a grant from the house of Valois, and the Duchy was from the royal house of Bourbon.


In the seventh generation from Grimwald Forsyth and descending from his disinherited son, came Osbert de Forsyth. At that time he was the only descendant in the male line in the family, since the other male members had perished in the civil war of France. Osbert’s relatives in the female line, who had held the castle and the Fronsac estates for several generations, had divided the estates so that Osbert inherited very little. This led Osbert to leave France and go to Scotland, the land of his forefathers. At the time, Eleanor of Provence went to England to marry Henry III. Osbert, accompanied the princess, and had the opportunity to visit England. On such occasions, it was the custom to make up a convoy of ships. Eleanor was attended on this journey by all the chivalry of the south of France. There was a stately train of nobles, ladies and minstrels. Eleanor was treated with peculiar honors while on her way by Thibaut, the poet, King of Navarre, who feasted her and her company for five days and guarded them in person with his knights and nobles to the French frontier. She then embarked with her company, sailing from Bordeaux. They landed at Dover, and after a short stay in England, Osbert then crossed over to Armondale in Scotland. He bore the shield with the emblems of Fronsac and Angoulene beneath the demi-griffin crest of the Forsyths.

Between 1246 and 1250, Osbert is found established in Armondale, Peebles county, Scotland, where he bore the family name and emblems of Forsyth in Scotland. His place in Armondale was destroyed in the Bruce war after the battle of Bannockburn. The family also had a manor called Polmaise Merischall in Salkilh County, Stirling.

The journey of Osbert deserves special emphasis, since it was the turning point for life or extinction for the Forsyths. It might have been extinction had he not decided to leave the land torn by constant warfare where so many of his own blood had been killed. The Forsyths in every nation who have inherited the name are descended from Osbert.

Osbert had a son whose name was Wilhelm, who is recognized in the Chronicles of Scottish history as a feudal lord of County Peebles, who signed the Ragman Roll of Scotland in 1296. The Ragman Roll was an agreement to submit to the arbitrators of King Edward the claims of the thirteen competitors for the crown of Scotland, so that civil war between them might be avoided.

Wilhelm’s son, Robert I, moved into Stirlingshire while Robert Bruce was fighting for his crown against King Edward. Robert and his son, Osbert II, became partners of Bruce. They took a prominent part in the battle of Bannockburn. After Bruce’s victory in this struggle he became king of Scotland. In gratitude to Osbert for the valuable service rendered in this most notable battle of all Scottish history, Bruce gave him a feudal grant of land in County Stirling.


Bannockburn is a town of Stirlingshire, Scotland, about three miles southeast of Stirling Castle. The battle of Bannockburn was the most important battle in the history of Scotland, and one in which Osbert Forsyth was a trusted and valiant leader.

The English king, Edward II, appeared on June 24, 1314, with an army which surpassed every force that had as yet been led against Scotland in numbers and equipment, and was the largest that a king of England ever led. He had one hundred thousand men and forty thousand horsemen. Bruce was aware of the immense superiority of the enemy, and that there were two Englishmen to every Scotsman.

Bruce chose his ground of battle with admirable skill in the royal park between the Bannockburn stream and the Castle of Stirling. To break the ranks of the English horse, he constructed covered pits, and put steel spikes over the ground. The English had an easy passage to horses only in front of the Scottish position at the banks of the stream. Therefore, the English had no choice but to attack the Scots at that point. Before the battle began, as the sun rose, the Scots went down on their knees to pray. When King Edward saw this, he said: “See, they are kneeling to ask pardon.” “Yes,” was the answer, “they are asking pardon, but from God, and not from us. You will conquer or die.”

At the beginning of the battle, the English archers bent their bows and sent their arrows as thick as snowflakes. Tile boggy ground and steel spikes prevented the horsemen from riding quickly. The Scots stood firm, thrusting with their spears at the horses which, maddened with pain, hurled their riders to the ground, and dashed hither and thither flinging the ranks into confusion. While the battle raged, from a hill nearby, what looked like another Scottish army was seen to descend. It was only the servants who attended Bruce. However, the English thought they were another army, and lost heart, and were thrown into a panic rout.

From the point of view of glory and interest, this battle holds first place among the triumphant actions of the Scottish people. It made Scotland a free country.


Osbert Forsyth II’s son, Robert de Forsyth II, was one of the greatest military leaders of Scotland. He became the governor of Stirling Castle about 1360. This was the highest military command in Stirling Province.

Osbert Forsyth II became the governor of Stirling Castle 1360

Stirling Castle is a noble architectural pile, and it is placed on a great lofty crag fronting the vast mountains and tile gloomy sky of the north. It plays an important part in Scottish history. In 1304, Edward I of England took the castle after a three-month siege however, Bruce retook it ten years later after the battle of Bannockburn. James II and James V were born in the castle, and here in 1452, James II stabbed the Earl of Douglass. The battle of Bannockburn where Bruce defeated Edward II, was fought two miles southeast of Stirling Castle.


This same Robert Forsyth became feudal Baron of Dykes, the first lord of Castle Dykes, which was in Lanark County, Scotland. Robert, who gained a victory over the English at the Dykes, built this castle around 1350. When the English invaded Scotland and were going to destroy the walls of Dykes, the king called for some one to stop the raid until he had time to mass his forces. Robert Forsyth volunteered to do this. How Robert stopped the English with less than four hundred men has been described in the following poem written by Frederic Gregory Forsyth of Canada, the present Vicomte de Fronsac:

From the hills we see them coming
In their stout array
Insolent the English
Think the land their prey
They have broken down the Dykes
In this their strong foray.
Who will be the one so valiant
As their course to stay?
Out spake one who falters ne’er
In council or in war–
He who bore a demi-griffin
On his crest afar.
Through the Dykes he’d chase the English with his clansmen true,
And with sword, Forsyth advancing pierced the arrow through.
When the King of Scotland saw
The chieftain straight and tall,
Who had stood with all his clan
A wall where stood the wall,
Hailed Forsyth to be the lord,
The baron of the Dykes.

The motto Instaurator Ruinae (Restorer of the Ruins) was approved and granted to the Forsyths of Scotland for their invaluable services at the battle of Dykes.
Dykes Castle adjoined Halhill, near Strathavon. Halhill was a manor belonging to the Forsyths of Dykes in County Lanark. The Forsyths moved from Dykes in the early part of the seventeenth century, after occupying it for two and three-quarter centuries. In 1628 the castle was in ruins. A part of the foundation remained until 1828 when it was entirely removed.


For successive generations, the Forsyths governed Stirling Castle. John, the son of Robert II, not only held the crown office at Stirling in 1379, but was also Baron of Dykes, and William, his son, held the same office in 1399.

In 1426 the son of William, who was Robert III, witnessed a charter of Robert Keith, Earl Marshal of Scotland. He married a daughter of Leslie of Roths.


The five sons of Robert are especially remembered for their establishing Glasgow University. The elder, John, was Baron of Dykes and bore the shield of Fronsac. There is no record that he held any professorship in the University, but his sons did. He married the daughter of Sir James Douglass.

Thomas, the second son of Robert III, Canon of Glasgow, used the Leslie seal of his mother (three buckles on a bend). He was an incorporator and founder of Glasgow University in 1473, and received from it a Master of Arts degree. In 1496, he became dean of the faculty as a recognition of his work and service. His son, in turn, became an instructor in the University. One of the younger brothers of Thomas signed the charter of the College in 1483, and was one of its instructors. Matthew, the fourth, was an elector to choose regents for the College in 1497, while Robert, the younger, was an officer. David I and Alexander Forsyth of Aberdeen, sons of John, were chosen to elect regents for the University in 1508.

David Forsyth was a Burgess of the city in 1478 and in 1487 Dom Thomas de Forsyth, Prebendry of Glasgow, endowed the chapel of Corpus Christie in the Cathedral. There are continuous records of the family as merchants and Burgesses of the city through the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. It was from Glasgow that members of the family settled in Argyllshire and Dunbartonshire and emigrated to Ulster, the Americas, South Africa and Australia .


David was also Lord of Dykes, and in 1492, his coat-of-arms appears in Sir James Balfour’s Heraldic Manuscript as Forsyth, Nydie was a castle in Fife that was held by the Forsyths. It is not known who built it or what became of it. The last of this family to hold the castle was Sir Alexander Forsyth in 1604. (David is also mentioned in the history of Stirling). By his title he was doubtless a baronet. The descendants of those who obtained the barony of Nydie were called the Forsyths of Nydie.

David’s son, David II, succeeded his father as Baron of Nydie and Lord of Dykes, and his son, John, succeeded to the titles in 1540. His arms as Forsyth of Nydie are in the Heraldic Manuscript of Sir David Lindsay, the principal herald of Scotland in 1542. However, in 1560, John transferred his estates of Gilcairnstorm, County Aberdeen, to Lord Gordon of Pittwig, to enter one of the military companies of France. When he entered the army, he assumed the title of Comte Forsyth de Fronsac. His brother, James Forsyth, signed a feudal charter before the lords commissioners at Edinburgh in 1560, as Lord of the Monastery of Dumblane. John’s son, David III, born in France, succeeded to Dykes in 1571. By act of Scottish Parliament, he was appointed a commissioner of revenue for Glasgow. The arms of Nydie were confirmed to his posterity through the families of Dykes and Failzerton by the Heralds College of Scotland. He had five children, as follows:

I. Margaret married Captain Jean Denys of Honfleur, and St. Vincent de Tours, France .

II. James, who was commissioner for Glasgow in 1602.

III. William, his successor as Baron of Dykes, who became commissioner of the Scottish parliament in 1621.

IV. Matthew was an Advocate (a lawyer).

V. Robert of Failzerton was in the French army. He was a claimant to the title of Forsyth de Fronsac. The arms of Nydie were confirmed to the Forsyths of Failzerton by Sir George McKenzie, King of Arms of Arms of Scotland.

William, son of David III, had three sons:

I. William, his successor, whose daughter, Barbara, married Baron Rello.

II. John, who was a Lord Commissioner of Scotland in 1652, and a member of the commission to meet the English Parliament to hear the plan of uniting the crown of Scotland and England. The Forsyths of Dykes were strongly opposed to unification. John was in favor of adopting the French language as the national speech, as a barrier against English settlement in the lowlands of Scotland. He regarded English settlement as a growing menace to integrity of the Scottish nation and to the independence of the Scottish kingdom.

John’s son, James, inherited the lands of Failzerton and Kilsyth from his mother, who was a daughter of Sir William Livingston. James was a famous preacher, a minister for the church in Airth in 1661 and at Stirling in 1665. His sermons were published in London in 1666. He was registered at Lyon Court as successor of Dykes and Nydie. He married Marion Elphinson, a daughter of the noted Bruce family, and the nearest line derived from the royal family of Bruce. Having no children, he adopted his relative, James Bruce, who succeeded as James Forsyth of Failzerton, alias Bruce of Gavell. This James was a member of the council of Stirling with the Duke of Hamilton.

The second son of John and brother of James, the minister, was Walter Forsyth, a regent of the University of Glasgow and titular Baron of Dykes. His will is yet in the documents of Scotland. He married his cousin, Margaret, daughter of Captain James Forsyth, who was a son of Robert of Failzerton. James became a captain in land and naval enterprises. In May, 1654, he was a prisoner of war among the English and escaped from the vault below the Parliament House where he had been confined. He married his cousin, Marguerite, daughter of Nicholas Denys, Vicomte de Fronsac, and royal governor of Acadia, Gaspesie and New Foundland.


By the 16th century Forsyth was a recognized Clan with its own Chief. However, at the time of Oliver Cromwell many of the Scottish Records were lost and as a result re-registration was necessary. This took place between 1672 and 1676 and our Chief failed to register.

For over 300 years the Clan was unrecognized. The Forsyths had entered historical darkness around 1650 when Cromwell’s ships carrying records of all the Clans as spoils of war, sank off Berwick on Tweed. The then chief failed to re-establish his claim to the name and his Armorial bearings when Charles II instituted a public register of Clans in 1672.


The Scots who migrated to Northern Ireland beginning about 1605 are generally referred to as ‘Ulster-Scots’, although sometimes in North America they are referred to as ‘Scotch-Irish’. Both terms most commonly refer to those Scots who settled the northern counties of Ireland during the Plantation scheme. However, there were Scots in Ireland as early as the 1400s, such as the McDonalds of County Antrim. There was also a steady stream of Scots migrating to Northern Ireland in the early 1800s as a result of the highland clearances in Scotland. It can therefore be considered that anyone whose ancestors migrated from Scotland to Northern Ireland from 1400 onward, is of Ulster Scottish descent, although the term Ulster-Scot was born with the Plantation scheme.

The majority of Scots who migrated to Northern Ireland came as part of this organized settlement scheme of 1605-1697. Plantation settlements were confined to the Province of Old Ulster, in the Counties of Antrim, Down, Armagh, Tyrone, Donegal, Cavan, Fermanagh, and Londonderry. As many as 200,000 Scots crossed the North Channel to settle in Ulster in this approximately 90 year period. The Plantation of Ulster took place in two stages. The first stage was confined to the two eastern counties of Antrim and Down. The initiative was taken by Scotish fortune seekers. Although the British Crown encouraged and co-operated with those responsible, it was fully a private venture. In County Down, the two leaders of the Scottish settlement were Hugh Montgomery, a Scottish laird from Braidstone in Ayreshire, and James Hamilton, who had begun his career in Ireland as a school teacher in Dublin in 1587.

The following is a list of Scottish surnames, contained on Muster Rolls and Estate Maps of the eight Plantation Counties of Ulster for the period 1607 – 1633, which was the initial phase of the plantation scheme.


On St. Andrew’s Day 1978, the Lord Lyon, King of Arms, once again recognized the Clan Forsyth as one of the old Clans of Scotland, and Alistair Forsyth of that Ilk as the Clan’s Chief. Today, Clan Forsyth is an active Clan, with members throughout the world.

About Us

This site provides information about Clan Forsyth Society of Queensland Inc. This includes the benefits of membership, activities sponsored by the society, the heritage of the Forsyth surname, general and Forsyth specific genealogy information affiliated organisation and online resources pertaining to things Scottish

Contact Us

(07) 54673338

+61 7 54673338

76 Southern Amberley Rd
Willowbank Qld 4306

Legal Pages

Tell us your story …

We would like to help you share your own account of Clan oral history, for both current and future generations, to appreciate and enjoy. Please contact us for full details on how we can help you achieve this:

Ancient Jewish History: Who Were the Hebrews?

According to biblical tradition, the Hebrews are peoples descended from Shem, one of Noah's sons, through Eber, the eponymous ancestor, and Abraham. Gen. 7:22 f., reports that the flood destroyed all life except that in Noah's ark consequently, the whole human family descended from Noah and his sons: Japheth, Ham and Shem. As yet, not all of the names of eponymous ancestors in the family lines can be identified, 1 but some probabilities are listed in Chart 6.

From Shem, through Arpachshad and Shelah came Eber, the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews, and from his descendants through Peleg, Reu, Sereg and Nahor came Terah, the father of Abram and his brothers Nahor and Haran. It becomes clear that if "Hebrews" are descendants of Eber, then others besides those of Abraham's line would be included (see Gen. 10:25-27).

Read Gen. 12-25
With Abraham the story of the Hebrews begins, and it is clearly stated that Hebrew origins lay outside Canaan. The summons to leave his ancestral home and journey to Canaan is accompanied by a promise (Gen. 12:2) that becomes a submotif in patriarchal accounts, re-appearing again and again (cf. Gen. 13:14 f., 15:5 f., 18:10, 22:17, 26:24, 28:13 f., 32:12 f., 35:9 ff., 48:16), finally taking covenantal form (Gen. 17:14 ff.). The promise has two parts: nationhood and divine blessing or protection. The precise location of the nation-to-be is not specified but was, of course, known to those hearing or reading the account. The promise of blessing signified the unique and particularistic bond between Yahweh and his followers, so that the enemies of Abraham or the nation were enemies of Yahweh, and those befriending Abraham and/or the nation would be blessed. With this assurance, Abraham journeyed to Canaan, Egypt, the Negeb, Hebron, Gezer, Beer-sheba and back to Hebron where he and his wife Sarah died.

The descriptions of Abraham are not uniform: at times he appears as a lonely migrant, at others as a chieftain, head of a large family, or as a warrior. Factual details about the patriarch are difficult to establish, for his real significance lies in what is often called "inner history," through which those who looked to Abraham as a forefather gained understanding of themselves as "people of the promise" and attained, a sense of destiny and an appreciation of their particular relationship to their deity. We have noted earlier that some Abrahamic traditions coincide with information coming from Nuzi, which would place Abraham in the Middle Bronze era.

We read that Abraham, in response to a divine summons, left Mesopotamia and journeyed to Canaan with his wife, Sarah, and nephew, Lot. It is clear that the people were meant to recognize themselves as a community originating in a commission from God and in the unwavering, unquestioning obedience of Abraham. The journey itself was more than a pilgrimage, for it constituted the starting point of a continuing adventure in nationhood. Nor are the travelers without vicissitudes, but throughout famine, earthquake, fire and war, they are protected by Yahweh.

Gen. 14, in which Abraham is called a "Hebrew" for the first time, records a battle between the patriarch and kings of countries or areas as yet unidentified for certain and associates him with the Canaanite king of Jerusalem. It is possible that reliable historical data are preserved here. 2 The account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah may also rest in some memory of a shift in the earth's crust that destroyed the cities of the plain. Tradition associates Abraham with Hebron, and if Jebel er-Rumeide is the site of this ancient city, it is evident that a powerful city was located here in the Middle Bronze period. 3

Abraham's adventures in the Negeb, the problems of grazing and watering rights, and the digging of a well at Beer-sheba 4 echo genuine problems of the shepherd. The episode involving Sarah and King Abimelech (a doublet of Gen. 12:10 ff.) introduces Sarah's relationship to Abraham as both wife and sister, a relationship which in Hurrian society provided the wife with privileged social standing. It may also be interpreted as an historic link with the cultures of the upper Euphrates. 5

The close relationship between the Hebrews and the people of the desert and steppes is recognized in the story of Ishmael, the nomadic first son of Abraham but it is through Isaac, the second son about whom so very little is recorded, that the Hebrews trace their own family line. Both Isaac and his son Jacob maintain a separateness from the people among whom they dwell, taking wives from among their own kin in Haran (Gen. 24 28). The story of Jacob, who becomes Israel, and his twin brother Esau, who becomes Edom, is colored with rivalry, trickery and bitter misundertanding but also contains echoes of Hurrian custom. In Hurrian law, birthright could be purchased, and some of the terminology associated with Isaac's blessing of his sons reflects Hurrian patterns. 6

The stories about Jacob also accord with Nuzi (Hurrian) law for it is recorded that a man may labor for his wife. 7 In dealing with his uncle Laban, Jacob's trickery was matched by his uncle's deceptive acts. There is no condemnation of chicanery but, rather, the attitude that to best a man in a business contract revealed cleverness. When Jacob's hopes to inherit his uncle's estate were dashed by the birth of male heirs, he broke contract and fled, and it was only when a new contract was made that relationships were healed. The account of Jacob's night wrestling with an angelic visitor has probably come down to us through various recensions, for it now contains two aetiological explanations: one concerning the name "Jacob-Israel" and the other giving the reason why the ischiatic sinew is not eaten by Hebrews. Other traditions associate Jacob with Bethel and Shechem.

Joseph, the son of Jacob, was sold into slavery by jealous brothers and rose to high office in Egypt. When his father and brothers migrated to Egypt to escape famine, they were regally received and encouraged to settle. Documents attesting to the custom of admitting nomadic groups into the country in time of famine are known from Egypt, and the Joseph stories reflect many accurate details about Egyptian life and may be derived in part from Egyptian tales, as we shall see. The pharaoh under whom Joseph rose to power is not identified.

It is quite possible, as A. Alt has argued, that the patriarchs were founders of separate cults or clans in which distinctive names for the deity were compounded with patriarchal names. 8 Hence, the deity was known as "the Shield of Abraham" (Gen. 15:1), "the Fear of Isaac" (Gen. 31:42, 53), and "the Mighty One of Jacob" (Gen. 49:24). Individual representations were later fused and equated with Yahweh, and individual clan heroes were placed in an historical sequence and made part of a single family line from Abraham to Jacob (Israel).

Read Exod. 1-6
After what appears to be an extended period of time, the Hebrews increased in numbers and became a mighty multitude, and a pharaoh who was indifferent to the Joseph traditions inherited the throne and persecuted the Hebrews, pressing them into virtual enslavement. Moses, a desert refugee from Egyptian justice, became associated with the Kenite people. On the slopes of Mount Sinai in a dramatic encounter with Yahweh, he was commissioned to act as deliverer of the Hebrews. In the clash with Pharaoh, the god-king's power was overshadowed by Yahweh through a series of horrendous events in which the Nile was turned to blood and plagues involving frogs, gnats, flies, cattle, boils, hail, locusts and darkness are ultimately climaxed by the death of all the first-born children of Egypt (Read Exod. 7-11). This final act, associated in tradition with the Passover festival, persuaded Pharaoh to release the Hebrews. Shortly after the Hebrews departed, Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them. At the Sea of Reeds, Yahweh permitted the Hebrews to pass through the waters unscathed but overwhelmed the Egyptians. The Hebrews pressed into the wilderness to Mount Sinai where the law was given and there they entered a covenant with Yahweh (Read Num. 14:39f.). After an abortive attempt to seize Canaan by penetrating from the south, they moved eastward and, after many setbacks, took up a position on the eastern side of the Jordan, just north of the Salt Sea. Here Moses died, and under his successor, Joshua, the attacks on Canaan were launched.


Efforts to date the patriarchal period have not been particularly rewarding, for biblical chronology is complex. In the P source, 215 years pass between the time of Abraham's journey to Canaan and Jacob's migration to Egypt (see Gen. 12:4b, 21:5, 25:26, 47:9), and the period spent in Egypt is given as 430 years (Exod. 12:40 f.), making a total of 645 years before the Exodus. As we shall see, most scholars date the Exodus near the middle of the thirteenth century, so that Abraham would leave Mesopotamia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and Jacob's journey to Egypt would occur about 1700 B.C. Unfortunately, date variations occur in some manuscripts. In the LXX, Exod. 12:40 includes time spent in both Egypt and Canaan in the 430-year period (some manuscripts read 435 years). According to this reckoning, Abraham's journey would fall in the seventeenth century and Jacob's in the fifteenth century.

The early nineteenth century date for Abraham places his departure from Mesopotamia at the time of the Elamite and Amorite invasion. It harmonizes with the conclusions of Nelson Glueck, who found that between the twenty-first and nineteenth centuries B.C. the Negeb was dotted with hamlets where inhabitants, having learned how to hoard water, engaged in agriculture and tended small flocks. Such settlements would provide stopping places for Abraham and his retinue. 9 The seventeenth century date for Jacob's settlement in Egypt coincides with the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, lending support to Josephus' hypothesis, for Hebrews may have been part of this movement.

The second pattern of dating would place Abraham in the time of Hammurabi of Babylon and would give strength to the argument that the mention of King Amraphel of Shinar in Gen. 14:1 is a Hebraized reference to Hammurabi. Abraham would, therefore, be in Canaan during the Hyksos period, and Joseph would have risen to power in the Amarna age. The close of the Amarna period brought to power leaders hostile to Akhenaton and possibly also to those he had favored.

Whatever the correct date for Abraham may be, he represents the beginning of the nation to the Hebrews. Yahweh's promise to the patriarch and his successors is considered to be the guarantee of national existence (Num. 32:11). There are no references to Abraham in the writings of the eighth century prophets, for then stress was laid on the Exodus as the starting point of the nation. In the seventh and sixth centuries, and in the post-Exilic period, the Abrahamic tradition came to the fore once again.

Efforts to determine the date and route of the Exodus have been disappointing. Josephus placed the Exodus at the time of the overthrow of the Hyksos by Ahmose in the sixteenth century, a date that is far too early. Biblical evidence is limited. I Kings 6:1 reports that Solomon began building the temple in the fourth year of his reign, 480 years after the Exodus. Solomon's rule is believed to have begun near the middle of the tenth century, possibly about 960 B.c. Thus, the date of the Exodus would be: 960 minus 4 (4th year of reign) plus 480, or 1436. In that case, Thutmose III would be the pharaoh of the oppression, and his mother, Hatshepsut, might be identified as the rescuer of the infant Moses. The Hebrew invasion of Canaan, taking place forty years later or about 1400 B.C., might be identified with the coming of the 'apiru. 10

Another theory is based on the reference to the building of Pithom and Raamses in Exod. 1:11. It was noted earlier that both Seti I and Rameses II worked at the rebuilding of these cities, and that Rameses is the best candidate for the Pharaoh of the Exodus (1290-1224 B.C.). If the Exodus took place between 1265 and 1255, the invasion of Canaan would occur in Mernephtah's reign, and some encounter between Egyptians and Hebrews would be the basis for his boast of annihilating Israel.

Attempts to chart the course followed by the fleeing Hebrews is equally frustrating. No one knows for sure the location of Mount Sinai, and the site chosen for the holy mountain determines, in part, the route suggested. Attempts have been made to identify stopping places mentioned in Num. 33:1-37, 11 but the identifications can be no more than conjectures, for biblical descriptions are vague without distinctive landmarks. 12

The traditional site of Sinai, Jebel Musa, near the southern tip of the Sinai peninsula, has been widely accepted since the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., although there was some confusion over which mountain in the cluster of peaks was Sinai. The traditional route to Jebel Musa begins in Egypt, crosses the Sea of Reeds (identified either at the tip of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Heroonpolis [Gulf of Suez] or as one of the papyrus swamps above the gulf), and goes southward along the western edge of the Sinai peninsula before turning inland to Jebel Musa. From Sinai, the Hebrews would move to the north along the Gulf of Aqabah toward Ezion Geber and Kadesti Barnea.

Sinai has also been identified as Jebel Helal, located in the northern part of the peninsula. The route to this mountain goes from Egypt across the marshy swamp area and follows the Way of Shur, one of the major trade routes of the ancient world, to Jebel Helal and Kadesh Barnea. Another route to this same mountain goes over the land strip of Lake Sirbonis (which becomes the Sea of Reeds), northward along the Way of the Philistines, the coastal route, then southward to Kadesh Barnea and Jebel Helal.

Some have insisted that the descriptions in Exod. 19:16 suggest volcanic disturbances and that Sinai must be sought among volcanic mountains, probably those in the Midianite areas on the eastern side of the Gulf of Aqabah. One choice among these mountains is El Khrob which preserves the name Horeb. The Exodus route would then follow the Way of Shur to Kadesh Barnea and Ezion Geber and down the coast to El Khrob. Sinai has also been located in Edomite territory, for Judg. 5:4 and Deut. 33:2 locate the mountain in Seir. Jebel Faran on the west side of the Wadi Arabah has been suggested as a possible choice, and mountains in the Petra area have also been suggested. In this case the Hebrews would have traveled along the Way of Shur, by way of Ezion Geber, into Edomite territory. 13

Although, for the scholar, there are innumerable problems associated with the Exodus tradition, this memorable event became a central factor in the interpretation of the Hebrew faith. Here Yahweh had demonstrated his loyal, redeeming love to the people whom he had chosen as his own. In the darkest days of the Exilic period, the memory of the Exodus event became a source of hope, for it was believed that Yahweh would deliver his people from bondage in Babylon even as he had rescued them from Egypt.

A somewhat different tradition of Hebrew beginnings is reflected in Ezek. (16:3 ff.), where mixed ancestry — Amorite, Hittite and Canaanite — is attributed to the Jerusalemites. But here we have a unique situation, for Jerusalem was a Jebusite stronghold which did not become a Hebrew city until the time of David (II Sam. 5). The firstfruits liturgy (Deut. 26:5) traces Hebrew ancestry to the Aramaeans, but the designation appears to be used in a broad rather than a specific sense.

Etymological analyses of the term "Hebrew" ( 'ibri) have given little help to the study of origins. The term has been related to a root, meaning "to go over" or "to go across" hence, a "Hebrew" would be one who crossed over or one who went from place to place, a nomad, a wanderer, a designation that would fit some aspects of patriarchal behavior. A similar term, habiru, is found in cuneiform documents from the twentieth to the eleventh centuries, often used interchangeably with another word, SA.GAZ. At times the Habiru appear to be settled in specific locations at times they serve in the army as mercenaries, or are bound to masters as servants. The El Amarna tablets refer to invaders of Palestine as 'apiru, a word bearing close relationship to the terms habiru and "Hebrew." 14 Extensive research has led many scholars to the conclusion that the term "Hebrew" was first used as an appellative to describe foreigners who crossed into settled areas and referred not to a specific group but to a social caste. If the word "Hebrew" parallels habiru or 'apiru, we know that these people on occasion were employed, at times created settlements of their own, and at other times attacked established communities. The suggestion that the terms 'apiru, habiru and "Hebrew" relate to those who have renounced a relationship to an existing society, who have by a deliberate action withdrawn from some organization or rejected some authority, and who have become through this action freebooters, slaves, employees or mercenaries presents real possibilities. 15 In the Bible the word Hebrew becomes an ethnic term used interchangeably with "Israelite." 16

Perhaps the best that can be said is that the Hebrews of the Bible appear to be one branch of the Northwest Semitic group, related linguistically to Canaanites, Edomites and Moabites, who moved from a semi-nomadic existence to settled life in the Bronze Age.

It is clear from biblical tradition that, at the beginning of their history, the semi-nomadic Hebrews with flocks of sheep and goats were at the point of moving into a settled way of life. The patriarchs are chiefs of large families or clans living, for the most part, in peace among their neighbors with whom they enter covenants. From family and clan beginnings came tribes linked to one another by ancestral blood ties. Bonds between clans or tribes were so strong that the group might be described as having an existence of its own, a personality embodying the corporate membership. This phenomenon of psychic unity, labeled "corporate personality" by H. Wheeler Robinson, 17 placed particular responsibilities upon each member of the group. Because group life was a unity, injury to a single member was injury to all demanding repayment by the next of kin, the go'el. 18 Blood shed was tribal blood requiring redemption by the next of kin. Should a man die without offspring, his next of kin had to bring the widow to fruition, and the child born to her became the child of the dead man, the one carrying his name (Ruth 4:4-10). As the father was at the head of the family, so the tribal chief and elders led the larger group, seeking the well-being, peace and psychic health of the members. The corporate nature of the group afforded great protection, for wherever a member went, he was backed by the strength of the tribe to which he belonged. Fear of reprisal tended to be — but was not always — a restraining factor in violation of social mores (Judg. 19-20). When the head of the household died, the widow and orphan were cared for by the next of kin and ultimately by the total group.

Tribal and family religion centered in holy places where a local priesthood tended shrines, kept altar fires burning, and shared in offerings (I Sam. 2:12-17). The father seems to have acted as ministrant on behalf of the family (I Sam. 1). Offerings were made and a meal shared through which the participants were bound more firmly together. There is no evidence that the deity was believed to participate in the meal. Agreements made at holy places were witnessed by the deity who guaranteed fulfillment of terms (Gen. 31:51 ff.). The shrine of Ba'al-berith (Judg. 9:4) or El-berith (Judg. 9:46), the "covenant god" at Shechem, may have been a holy place where covenants were made in the presence of the god.

An important custom in Hebrew society was the practice of hospitality. A guest was honored and entertained, even at considerable expense to the host (Gen. 18:1-8, 24:28-32). Once under the host's roof, or having shared food, the guest was guaranteed protection (Gen. 19, Judg. 19). Should a stranger settle in the community, he enjoyed most of the rights and responsibilities.

From time to time new groups were grafted into the family tree of Hebrew tribes, and the heritage of the larger group became that of the adopted ones, as when the Calebites united with the tribe of Judah (Josh. 14:6-15, 15:13). When confronted by common problems or enemies, tribal federations were formed (see Judg. 4-5). On the other hand, when a famine or food shortage occurred, one group might leave to seek new territory (Gen. 13). Tribal activity in Canaan is portrayed as a twelve-tribe federation 19 often called an amphictyony, after Greek tribal federations. 20 However, clear distinctions between Greek and Hebrew patterns must be recognized. Greek cities united in an amphictyony centered about a shrine where peoples from the surrounding cities worshiped and where decisions affecting the participating members were made. The Hebrew amphictyony was centered in the Ark of Yahweh, a moveable shrine. Some scholars have argued that a primitive amphictyonic ritual was observed at the shrine at Sliechem, 21 but the hypothesis rests only upon probabilities. A six-tribe federation, which preceded the twelve-tribe grouping, has also been postulated involving the Leah tribes: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, udah, Zebulun and Issachar. 22

CHART VII. Sometimes the tribes are listed genealogically (Gen. 35:23 I Chron. 2:1-2) sometimes in cultic formation (Num. 2-3 Deut. 27:12) and sometimes geographically (Num. 34:14-28 I Chron. 6:54 ff. Ezek. 48:1 ff.). Usually twelve tribes are mentioned, but the identification of the tribes varies: in one Dinah is listed in place of Benjamin (Gen. 29-30), and in Chronicles both halves of the tribe of Manasseh are counted (I Chron. 2-3 6:54-80). Some lists mention only ten tribes (Deut. 33:6 ff. II Sam. 19:43) one gives eleven tribes (I King 11:31) and in Gen. 46:48 ff. there are thirteen.

Sources: Old Testament Life and Literature is copyright © 1968, 1997 by Gerald A. Larue. All rights reserved.
The electronic version is copyright © 1997 by Internet Infidels with the written permission of Gerald A. Larue.
These files, and many more are available at the Secular Web: For more information, send mail to [email protected] .

1. G. von Rad, Genesis, trans. by John H. Marks (Philadelphia: Westrninster Press, 1961), pp. 142 f.
2. E. A. Speiser, Genesis, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1964), pp. 105 ff.
3. Gerald A. Larue, "The American Expedition to Hebron, 1965," The Journal of Bible and Religion, XXXIII (1965), 337 ff.
4. Possibly located at Tell Sheba, an unexcavated mound just east of the modern town.
5. Speiser, Genesis, pp. 91 ff.
6. Ibid., pp. 212 f.
7. Cf. G. Cornfeld (ed.), Adam to Daniel (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), p. 85.
8. A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1953), I. See also J. Bright, op. cit., pp. 88 ff.
9. Nelson Gltieck, Rivers in the Desert, pp. 68 ff.
10. Jack Finegan, Light From the Ancient Past, pp. 118 ff.
11. G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology, p. 64 C. Kraeling, Bible Atlas, pp. 107 ff.
12 .Y. Aharoni, "Kadesh Bamea and Mount Sinai," God's Wilderness (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962), p. 118.
13. For a detailed statement of conjectures on Sinai and the Exodus route, cf. Kraeling, op. cit., chap. 6.
14. Cf. T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins, chap. 1. For the suggestion that the term 'apiru means "donkey driver, caravaneer" cf. Wm. F. Albright, "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (henceforth BASOR), No. 163 (1961) 36-54.
15. E. F. Campbell, "The Amarna Letters and the Amarna Period," BA XXIII (1960), 15 G. E. Mendenhall, "The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine," BA XXV (1962), 71 f.
16. For an extended discussion of the 'Apiru-Habiru-Hebrew problem, cf. Mary F. Gray, "The Habiru-Hebrew Problem in the Light of Source Material Available at Present," Hebrew Union College Annual, XXIX (1958), pp. 135-202 Moshe Greenberg, The Hab/piru, American Oriental Series, XXXIX (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1955).
17. H. Wheeler Robinson, "The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality," Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments, J. Hempel (ed.), B.Z.A.W. LXVI, 1936, pp. 49ff. See also J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (Copenhagen: Povl Branner, 1926), Vols. I-II Aubrey R. 18. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, 2nd ed. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961) and Aubrey R. 19. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 2nd ed. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964).
20. Go'el comes from a root meaning "to recover" or "buy back" or "redeem," and thus means "redeemer," "restorer" and, in a sense, "protector." 21. For a brief discussion, cf. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, John McHugh, trans. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961), pp. 21 f.
22. The scheme develops out of the twelve sons of Jacob — six from Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun two from Zilpah: Gad and Asher two from Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin and two from Bilhah: Dan and Naphtali (cf. Gen. 29:16-30:24 35:16-20). The final grouping for division of the land includes: Asher, Benjamin, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Judah, Manasseh, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon and ZebuIun. More than twenty variant lists occur within the Bible.
23. Martin Noth, The History of Israel, pp. 87 ff. John Bright, A History of Israel, pp. 142 f. Murray Newman, The People of the Covenant (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 102 ff.
24. Cf. Noth, op. cit., pp. 92 f. Newman, op. cit., pp. 108 ff.
25. Cf. Noth, op. cit., pp. 88 f. Newman, op. cit., p. 102.

Download our mobile app for on-the-go access to the Jewish Virtual Library

The System of Clans and Hereditary Titles (氏姓制度)

Shisei Seido (the system of clans and hereditary titles) is a system made in ancient Japan in which the Imperial Court gave the nobles living in the capital and the powerful local clans a clan name and a hereditary title according to each person's degree of contribution to the state (Yamato Sovereignty) and the position the person occupies in the Government of the Imperial Court and let them kept the special privilege by the hereditary system. It is also called 'Uji Kabane no Sei' (System of Uji and Kabane) 'Shisei' is the Chinese style reading of the same kanji ('on' reading).

When Japan formed a nation under the ritsuryo codes after the Taika Reforms, the clan names and the hereditary titles became given to Bemin (people who belonged to the Yamato Dynasty) in other words, the system of clans and hereditary system was expanded to the general public and Uji and Kabane came to a way to reveal one's social position in the hierarchy of the state. People who did not have the clan (family) names and hereditary titles became only members of the Imperial family including Emperor and slaves.

The system of clans and hereditary titles as a political system

In the primitive community, a clan and a tribe became a social unit. The basis of the system of clans and hereditary titles was an extended family as a kin group, but it was reorganized as a political system of the state. The formation period was between the fifth century and the sixth century. The characteristic of this system of clans and hereditary titles is that a specific person within the same extended family was given a position which included Omi, Muraji, Tomo no miyatsuko, Kuni no miyatsuko, Momo amari yaso no tomo and Agata-nushi, and the Imperial Court granted the clan name and the hereditary title that corresponded each position.
The following is a list of each kabane (each hereditary title) and the major clans given this hereditary title:

The clans who were given the title of Omi were powerful clans that were once in the position to stand on par with the royal family and occupied the highest position in the Yamato sovereign, including such clans as the Katsuragi clan, the Heguri clan, the Kose clan, the Kasuga clan, and the Soga clan (these clan names were the place names in Yamato (around Nara Basin).)

The clans who were given a position of Muraji were clans from powerful families and were subordinates of Yamato Sovereign as government officials and the duty they had in the court was made with their clan names and they played an important role in establishing the Yamato sovereignty these clans included the Otomo clan, the Mononobe clan, the Nakatomi clan, the Inbe clan, and the Haji clan.

Tomo no miyatsuko
The clans who were given the position of Tomo no miyatsuko overlaps with those of clans who were given the position of Muraji mainly these clans were powerful families who shared the duties of the divisions of the Yamato sovereignty. The clans that were given the position of Tomo no Miyatsuko included the representative naturalized clans such as the Hata clan, the Yamato no Aya clan, the Kawachi no Aya clan as well as the clans such as the Yuge clan, the Yazume clan, the Hatori clan, the Inukai clan, the Tsukishine clan and the Shitori clan. The clans who received the position of Tomo no Miyatsuko had the hereditary titles such as Muraji, Miyatsuko, Atai, and Kimi.

Momo Amari Yaso no Tomo
The clans that received the position of Momo Amari Yaso no Tomo were beneath the Tomo no Miyatsuko in its rank many clans who received this title directly took control of common people. The clans who received the position of Momo Amari Yaso no Tomo had the hereditary titles such as Obito, Fuhito Sukuri, and Sukuri.

Kuni no Miyatsuko
The clans who received the position of Kuni no Miyatsuko were representative local clans in certain aspect they were integrated into the local offices of the Yamato Sovereignty so that there were some clans that were in the position of Tomo no Miyatsuko in local sense and took control of the common people in the region. Most of the hereditary titles of Kuni no Miyatsuko were Kimi, and Atai there were some clans that had the title of Omi.

The title of Agata-nushi existed before the Yamato regime employed the ritsuryo system it seems Agata-nushi means the head of a region which is small in size. Every Agata-nushi's clan name was a place name.

As descried above, the system of clans and hereditary titles was born by making the 'Naoi no Uji' (naming of the title revealing what the person does) people with these titles constituted the Yamato sovereign and took responsibility by working in the various functions which are hereditary and these hereditary titles included Muraji, Tomo no Miyatsuko, Momo Amari Yaso no Tomo in that order in the rank. Later this giving the hereditary title was extended to the powerful clans that were originally in the same rank with the king.

People who were privately held as Bemin who belonged to the Yamato Dynasty
Clan name and hereditary title were originally held by people of the governing classes and these titles were such as Omi, Muraji, Tomo no Miyatsuko, Kuni no Miyatsuko composing Yamato Sovereignty (the king and his family were excluded). However, in the sixth century the clan name (family name) and the hereditary titles were also given to the common people. These common people were ruled and controlled by the Imperial Court namely Emperor, Empress, Imperial princes, and powerful families such as Omi and Muraji, and so forth. For this reason, naturally there came a group of people who worked for the Yamato Regime for various functions these people included Shinabe who worked at the Imperial court, Nashiro and Koshiro who worked for king and prince, and Tabe who worked for the demesne as farmers. They were organized making each house one unit in an advanced community of people who belonged to the Yamato Regime in the sixth century, their family name and hereditary titles were written down in their register book in this way they had an official family name and hereditary title.

In contrast to people who directly belonged to the Yamato Regime, Kakibe, who were under the control of powerful local clans needed to go through the head of the local clan and to be included to Be (group of common people to work for the Yamato Regime in various functions) while keeping their original form of community and the service of labor offered to the Yamato Regime were often done through the head of the clan. Therefore, it is not certain that the giving of clan names (family names) and hereditary titles was extended to the common people under the control of powerful local clans in the sixth century.

The reorganization process of clans by the Japanese nation under the ritsuryo codes

The Yamato Regime reorganized positions such as Omi, Muraji, Tomo no Miyatsuko, and Kuni no Miyatsuko under the system of clans and hereditary titles into bureaucrats of the nation under the ritsuryo codes and changed Bemin into citizen and made them uniformly belong to the nation by Taika Reforms.

In 664, the Imperial Edict 'Kasshi no Sen' was issued. This edict tried to revise the official rank existed since the Taika Reforms in that it tried to establish Ouji clan, Kouji clan, and Tomo no Miyatsuko clan and to clarify the clan head of each clan and the extent of clan members belonging to each clan. In other words, in this edict Daikini (Ouji) and Shokini (Kouji) namely clans who had the clan head whose rank can be positioned more than the fourth rank and the fifth rank in the ritsuryo system were established by this prescription the Emperor tried to interlock the official rank system in the Imperial Court and the system of clans and hereditary titles. Furthermore, the edict limited the clan members who belong to the clan head to the direct blood kin by the paternal line and clarified the vague definition of the extent of each clan which were either by the principle of paternal line or maternal line up to that time. As a result, in principle, the compound surnames such as Mononobe Yuge, Abe no Fuse, and Soga no Ishikawa were to disappear after this edict.

In 684, 'Yakusa no Kabane' (eight official titles to be conferred upon nobles by Emperor Tenmu) was established. The object was to establish four hereditary titles of higher rank and they were Mahito, Ason, Sukune, and Imiki. It is said that the rank of Mahito is given to clans that are within the fifth generation from the Emperor Keitai and in this way clans close to the Imperial Family that are next to princes, princes who did not receive any proclamation to be an Imperial prince were specified this method is common with the Asuka Kiyomihara Code (a collection of governing rules compiled and promulgated in 689 [late Asuka period]) in which the Code distinguished the official rank between princes, princes who did not receive any proclamation to be an imperial prince and nobles who served the Emperor. Therefore, the hereditary titles for nobles were Ason, Sukune, and Imiki. Those described above are a developed form of Ouji, Kouji, and Tomo no Miyatsuko in 'Kasshi no Sen' and the clan system was further reorganized to include 52 clans of Ason, 50 clans of Sukune, and 11 clans of Imiki.

In 701, with the Taiho Code a special privilege for nobles above the third and for bureaucrats above the fourth and fifth office ranks was made clear. The clan names and hereditary titles corresponding to the above privilege were also completed. It is said that in 702 the same treatment with the powerful clans in the capital was made for the powerful local clans by letting the powerful local clans to register the clan name and hereditary title of Kuni no Miyatsuko in the various provinces to the government.

With the general public, every one was to be registered in the family register by the ancient family registration system of 670 and the ancient family registration system of 690 thus, with the system of clans and hereditary titles of which the hereditary title of Be was predominant was completed. However, the existing register of Taiho 2 (the year 702) contains the parts in which family name and hereditary title were not written down also there were considerable number of cases in which the name of a group such as Kuni no Miyatsuko group, Agatanushi group was written down therefore, we can assume that there were many who did not have their own individual title and people who used the group name, to which they identified themselves as his hereditary title.

In 757, the Imperial government decided not to write down people with no hereditary title and people with group title as it is into the family register
This shows the following about peasants under powerful local clans.

Some peasants did not have kabane (hereditary title) because they were not under any powerful local clan. There were people who were made to tentatively identify thenselves using their group names by showing that they belonged to the community of Kuni no Miyatsuko or the community of Agatanushi. There were newly naturalized people to whom a hereditary title was not given. It shows that these things existed. The clan name and hereditary title were given to such people officially after this.

During the period between the eighth century and the ninth century there were many changes made in the hereditary titles this change was geared to the people with the lower social position who were excluded from the rank of higher hereditary position in the Yakusa no Kabane Reform as well as these peasants. The order of Kabane (the hereditary title) is 1. no Kabane, 2. Miyatsuko, Kimi, Fuhito, Sukuri, Suguri, Hito, 3. Muraji.

This is the same treatment with the changes made in the Imperial Court of Emperor Tenmu in which the Kabane of the clan corresponding to the head of clan was changed into Muraji as the preliminary step before to get to Yakusa no Kabane (eight official titles conferred upon nobles by Emperor Tenmu in 684) Emperor Tenmu made this Muraji (above the rank of Shokini) a base point and changed into four hereditary titles of above Imiki.

Regarding the above Imiki that is the head of a clan, supplemental change of the clan name and hereditary title was made. Under the clan name the changes of Kasuga to Okasuga and Nakatomi to Onakatomi were made also Sukune was changed to Osukune accordingly the system of clans and hereditary titles came to penetrate more pervasively in general.

The general characteristic of these lies in the point that at the beginning the top rank is raised and then for the direct line that connected with the raised rank changes of clan name and hereditary title is made because of this procedural order, an influential person is extracted. The right to give permission to change and grant hereditary titles was in the hands of Emperor.

Change in the Quality of the System of Clan Names and Hereditary Titles

By the regency politics, the Northern House of the FUJIWARA clan (one of the four Fujiwara family lines) became most influential in the ninth century. In addition, giving clan names and hereditary titles to princes by demoting them from the nobility to subject came to be executed quite often examples include TAIRA no Ason from Emperor Kammu and MINAMOTO no Ason from Emperor Seiwa. For these reasons, the Shisei Seido (the system of clans and hereditary titles) that is related to the ritsuryo system came to hardly function as a system to appoint talented people effectively.

On the other hand, family registration system based on the ritsuryo system was gradually phased out in the tenth century, people who became strong among powerful local clans became the retainers of the influential nobles and invaded clan names and hereditary titles in essence, the phenomenon of so-called Bomei Kain (misrepresentation of one's clan name and hereditary title) became quite commonplace. Therefore, the clan name and hereditary title in Japan came to concentrate on such names as Minamoto, Taira, Fuji, Tachibana, Ki, Sugawara, Oe, Nakahara, Sakagami, Kamo, Ono, Koremune, Kiyohara and such. Also, this is because specific family lineage became fixed from the formation of family business.

For example, the Tsuruga clan of Echizen Province, the Atsuta-Daiguji family adopted a son from the Fujiwara clan and called themselves Fujiwara Ason also they took the daughter of the Fujiwara clan in marriage and named 'Fujiwara Ason' by the maternal line examples of other clan names and hereditary titles also exist. Warriors also invaded the clan names and hereditary titles of the head family or proprietors of manor as the land steward many of them called themselves the same clan name and the hereditary title they invaded. In this situation, even among the people who share the same hereditary title, there arose the need to divide the clan name and in the case of nobles family name and in the case of the warriors surname came to be born.

Meanwhile, besides clan name and hereditary titles, Azana also developed at the same time. Azana was also called Kemyo or Yobina it was a sort of unofficial name. There is already an example in "Nihon Genho Zen-aku Ryoik"i (set of three books of Buddhist stories, written in the late eighth and early 9th century) in this book FUMI no Imiki in the Ito County, Kii Province is called Saburo KAMITA. Kamita is a place name of Kamita no Mura, Ito County Saburo means the third son.

A surname that replaced the clan name and hereditary title occurred in this way as a part of Azana and it seems that later it was separated from Azana and became independent. Because the early family name was one's place of residence and the name of territory, many times father, son and brothers have the different family names. However, gradually the family name meant the name of the family and the clan with this shift in meaning, the family name became fixed and the name was to be kept even the family moved to other province.

Because of this a family name was used in the same way as a clan name and hereditary title after the 12th century. The characteristic of a family name in the current sense comes from this family name derived from Azana basically.

Watch the video: Feature History - Meiji Restoration