Surnames in the 1600s and early 1700

Hi, I just thought I would add my two bits. So, I was born Ash Wednesday, in Jalisco. Could I have been called "Cenicienta"?
:-) Esther Jordan (Lopez)

I was told of the traditional naming pattern of the given named many years ago.
I found a book "The Lives of the Saints" by Omer Englebert, it's published by
Barnes and Noble and is a great book if one wants to know the saint assigned to
each day. I'm glad I wasn't name after the saint on my birthday......otherwise
I'd be called "Eve".

I have a friend that was born in Chihuahua and had moved to California when she
was 9. She recently told me a story about her name. Her parents were not
traditional and had named her after the movie star "Norma Shearer" of the
1940's. Norma's other siblings were either named after American movie stars or
Mexican singers so that when everyone in their village were celebrating their
saints day.....Norma and her siblings could not. She said that she felt left
out and until she told me this story she didn't know the exact name of the
movie star until I researched it for her.

I find it an interesting story and wanted to share it.

Rose Gonzales-Hardy

Jaime,

Joseph Tiscareño (who married María García) could indeed be the son of
Francisco Tiscareño and María de Huerta. Joseph Tiscareño de Huerta,
mestizo, married Juana de Chávez 04 May 1704 according to an IGI Record in
Family Search. I have not looked for the actual record, but maybe you can
find it. Joseph Tiscareño and Juana de Chávez baptized six children in
Aguascalientes:

1. Francisco bapt. 16 Feb 1705
2. Blas bapt. 16 Feb 1707
3. Rosa María bapt. 18 Mar 1708
4. Lorenza Gertrudis bapt. 31 Aug 1710
5. Ignacio bapt. 16 Feb 1713
6. María bapt. 11 Nov 1714

Juana de Chávez died 10 Nov 1714, the day before her daughter María was
baptized. Joseph Tiscareño, a widower at 33 years of age, probably
remarried. I don't have time to look for his marriage record/marriage
information tonight, but I'm willing to bet he married María García sometime
between 10 Nov 1714 and Feb 1715. The timeline fits perfectly with the 5
children born between 1715 and 1728.

Let me know what you find out.

Bill Figueroa

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime R. Alvarado"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Surnames in the 1600s and early 1700

Bill,
A Tiscareno line that I have not been able to connect (perhaps until now) to
Luis Tiscareno de Molina is the one of Joseph Tiscareno married to Maria
Garcia (have not been able to find their wedding information). This couple
had at least 5 children, Juan (christened 24 Oct 1715), Juan Antonio (4 Aug
1717), Antonio Alejandro (10 Oct 1724), Vicente (my direct ancestor, born
about 1725) and Francisco Antonio (3 agosto 1728). These children were
described as indio, mestizo, lobo, coyote, and is the only of my Tiscareno
lines that is not Spanish. I wonder if this Joseph is the son of Francisco
Tiscareno and Maria de Huerta. The timeline suggest it could be. What do you
think?

Jaime Alvarado

Hi Jaime and Bill, take a look at this, something I found interesting. Francisco Tiscareño de Molina, illigitmate child of Captain Juan. was mestizo, who married a mestiza Maria Huerta they had a Juan (1687). Juan was also a mestizo. Juan married a relative of mine, Juana Maria de Chaves y Fragoso in 1713 she was espanola. They had Maria Gertrudis Tiscareno de Molina, I think Ive seen her at least once use Chaves Fragoso. Maria Gertrudis was castizo (3/4 white and 1/4 amerindian). She married Vicente de Montoya another Spaniard. Their children were español. This Tiscareño branch of the illigitimate branch that started Mestizo ended up Spanish. Im always amazed at this type of stuff. Its probably the influence Francisco had around him and his father. Thought I might share this. -Daniel Camino

Hi Bill ,

I like your defintion much better than mine !

Excelent work !

Welester

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

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

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

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

Moctezuma II (indígena)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Daniel Camino

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

Hi Bill, I am a bit confused how does Juan and Francisco fit into the Tiscareno family? is Juan the same Juan son of Luis and Lorenza? -Daniel
_________________________________________________________________

Angelina,

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

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

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

Alicia

________________________________
From: Angelina Markle
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:28:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Surnames in the 1600s and early 1700

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

-Angelina-

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

George,

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

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

Alicia,
San Jose, Calif

Hola, Salvador. Con todo el respeto que te mereces, debo decirte que estoy en desacuerdo contigo. Si no me equivoco, de los grupos indígenas que habitaban lo que es hoy la República Mexicana, solo los Mayas tenían la costumbre de usar nombres y apellidos, tal como los usan hoy en día en Yucatán, Guatemala y otras regiones de Centroamérica (Honduras y Belice). En Guatemala, donde el mestisaje no fue tan intenso como en México, los descendientes de los Mayas aún conservan sus apellidos con orgullo. Lo mismo sucede en Yucatán, Chiapas y Tabasco. Como recordarás, Chiapas y Tabasco formaron parte de la que fuera Capitanía General de Guatemala, hasta que optaron por anexarse a México después de la Independencia de Centroamérica (15 de Septiembre de 1821). Después de leer miles de partidas de bautizo y actas de matrimonio de Aguascalientes, así como informaciones matrimoniales, confirmaciones, defunciones, etc. he venido a darme cuenta que los indígenas que habitaban "la Gran Chichimeca" no usaban apellidos. Después de catequizarlos y convertirlos a la religión católica, a los niños que iban naciendo se les iban dando nombres cristianos. Predominaron José para los varones y María para las mujeres, así como Juan, Diego, Andrés, Lucas, etc. etc.. Al principio no se les daba un apellido, pero mas tarde se les daba el de los dueños de las haciendas o casas donde trabajaban.. Debo aclarar que a los que se llamaba "coyotes" era únicamente a los hijos de mestizo con india, es decir que eran una cuarta parte "españoles" y tres cuartas partes "indios". No es que la Iglesia discriminara contra los indígenas, ya que si alguien ha salido siempre a su defensa ha sido la Iglesia Católica (empezando con Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, defensor de los indios). Lo que pasa es que nuestros antepasados establecieron el sistema de castas para clasificar a los habitantes de las colonias. Así pues, cuando bautizaban a un niño anotaban si era español, indio, mestizo, negro, mulato, coyote (hijo de mestizo con india), morisco (hijo de español con mulata), albino (hijo de español con morisca), lobo (hijo de morisco con negra) o alguna otra combinación de razas y castas. La esclavitud y ese aborrecible sistema de castas fue abolido por el Bachiller Don José María Morelos, Cura y Juez Eclesiástico. Oyelo bien, Cura y Juez Eclesiástico. El bando de la abolición dice lo siguiente:

BANDO DE ABOLICIÓN DE LAS CASTAS Y LA ESCLAVITUD ENTRE LOS MEXICANOS (1810)

"El Bachiller Don José María Morelos Cura y Juez Eclesiástico
Capitán General de la América [1810]

"Por el presente y a nombre de Su Excelencia hago público y notorio a todos los moradores de esta América el establecimiento del nuevo gobierno por el cual a excepción de los europeos todos los demás avisamos, no se nombran en calidades de indios, mulatos, ni castas, sino todos generalmente americanos. Nadie pagará tributo, ni habrá esclavos en lo sucesivo, y todos los que sostengan, sus amos serán castigados. No hay cajas de comunidad, y los indios percibirán las rentas de sus tierras como suyas propias en lo que son las tierras. Todo americano que deba cualquiera cantidad a los europeos no está obligado a pagársela; pero si al contrario debe el europeo, pagará con todo rigor lo que deba al americano.

Todo reo se pondrá en libertad con apercibimiento de que el que delinquiera en el mismo delito, o en otro cualquiera que desdiga a la honradez de un hombre será castigado.

La pólvora no es contrabando, y podrá labrarla el que quiera. El estanco del tabaco y alcabalas seguirá por ahora para sostener tropas y otras muchas gracias que considera Su Excelencia y concede para descanso de los americanos. Que las plazas y empleos están entre nosotros, y no los pueden obtener los ultramarinos aunque estén indultados.
Cuartel General del Aguacatillo, 17 de noviembre de 1810.

José Ma, Morelos "

Siguiendo mi disertación, sabemos que los Tlaxcaltecas fueron aliados de los españoles ya que desde un principio se unieron a Hernán Cortés para derrotar al Imperio Azteca. Si eso no hubiera pasado, otro gallo nos cantara. Los españoles llevaban un escaso número de soldados, acompañados por huestes de indios Tlaxcaltecas, quienes los ayudaron a conquistar las diversas regiones de la Nueva España. De la misma forma Don Pedro de Alvarado llevó muchísimos indios Tlaxcaltecas a Guatemala para derrotar a los Quichés y Cackchiqueles, quienes defendieron su tierra contra los españoles. Así murió Tecún Umán en un río de sangre. No es de extrañar que también hayan llevado Tlaxcaltecas a la Nueva Galicia, donde les sirvieron para apaciguar a los Chichimecas, que era gente muy belicosa y gente de guerra.

Saludos,
Bill Figueroa

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Surnames in the 1600s

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

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