Indigenous Australians only had one name. How do we create a profile with only a name in the Last name at birth box

Question

The person had the name Mannalargenna, and he was a Chief when he grew up but no amount of searching would find his proper, and only name Mannalargenna. Putting Chief as the identifier is not helpful. Mannalargenna should be the identifier, so what can go in the First name at birth box.

He would be in the Category:Indigenous Australians, if that helps in the programming side, but would only be added after the profile has been created. Putting Unknown in the First name box is just not correct as there never was one

Answer 1

We have a similar problem with Native American who were born before they began to adopt surnames. We use their known name as their first name and the name of their tribe as the surname. It's not the best solution, but for now it works.

Comments

Would it be possible to put the English translation of their indigenous name in the First Name at Birth place and their Indigenous name in the Last Name at Birth place. Or visa verca.

---

Many thanks for that suggestion Michelle. The meanings are not often known today, particularly in Tasmania where the languages have mainly been lost. Also the meanings are often quite long. But a good idea and thank you for it. I'm also favouring having the Aboriginal name as the last name so it can be searched and found if someone has already created it as I've recently discovered but not added it to the Category:Indigenous Australians.

---

Thanks Jeannie and a great idea, although in the Australian case I would prefer to put the Aboriginal name last and the Tribe first so the former can be searched rather than the latter. We've been putting the tribe name as a category following the Category:Indigenous Australians, so it is already searchable on that basis but not the Aboriginal name. I found a few of those recently by 'chance' that did not have anything in the Category line so could not be found by searching!

---

There are a few points to be aware of here:

1/ Tribes is not the most appropriate word to use in the case of Indigenous Australians

2/ When you refer to searching, I suspect you are referring to Google. You should be aware that whether the name is placed as first name or last name, it makes no difference to this type of search. It is important for the LNAB at birth category to be a collective identifier (such as a famiy name) Otherwise it becomes useless as a search tool within Wikitree. If it is a collective identifier such as a clan it is useful as people can group all members of the same clan under the same identifier. LNAB is not linked in any way to google searches.

---

It needs to be noted that there was NO "Tasmania" when this specific person was born, nor was there a "Tasmania" when they died.

Van Diemen's Land would work for the place name at death, so what about Lutriwita (which is, according to Wikipedia, the reconstructed Palawa kani language name for Tasmania) for the location at birth? 

Or, even better, Trouwunna, which is stated on the profile to be the name used by his people? 

Or Tebrikunna, Trouwunna, to place it more precisely to the northeast.

The biography can contain the information that the peoples before Europeans called what is now known as Tasmania by these names.

---

If you put in Padnaindi as the LNAB for Kudnarto and search for Kudnarto Wikitree you will not get the profile. I've done it.

---

That's great for place names, thanks Melanie and it has been done with Tebrikunna. It is the Last Name at Birth, which is the difficulty and needs discussion within the Indigenous Australians membership, before a decision is made by the group leaders.

---

Yeah, I'm afraid I don't have a suggestion regards the last name situation, except to use the name for the peoples themselves (such as Gubbi Gubbi, Murrawarri, Pitjantjatjara, etc).  I've tried to find sources for a woman known as "Oyster Maggie" whose year (at least) of death was supposedly known.  But I cannot find any record around that time that could be her.  I wouldn't be surprised if she simply wasn't registered at all, because she wasn't recognised as a citizen.  (This was late 1800s/early 1900s.)

I sort of jumped on Simon's bump because I'd just read/watched something on the BBC about "The Australian Language Dying Out" and that kind of thing (the loss of the languages, not this initiative to retain them, which I think is great!) gets my blood boiling. (I won't get on my soapbox here.)  I looked at the profile in the light of that news and thought "we should be using their naming where/when possible".  So I posted.

---

Christopher.

Are you sure it had enough time to get added to search algorithms? They would search both the first name and last name fields so this does not seem to be a reason for making a decision to misrepresent Indigenous kinship structures.

What if someone is aware of their clan and want to see other profiles that have already been written. How do they do that the clan members have not been grouped by LNAB?

This has been discussed in the group Christopher. I was working with you on a proposal.

---

If anyone else would like to comment on this structure, a draft has been included in the profile linked below. I was attempting to workshop this with Christopher before discussing it more broadly as he has written most of the Indigenous Australian profiles to date. There has been a discussion also on the googlegroup, which many people cannot access because it is the googlegroup. Christopher had previously indicated an approval to go ahead and start working on this draft proposal based on the definition of clan listed in the profile. Please make sure to click on the link clan/language group as an LNAB, within the draft structure for further justification.

NB For people without access to googlegroups: This information was added to the googlegroup, however, there was no comment by any members except for Christopher, giving approval to go ahead and develop a draft structure and Veronica/Gillian suggesting we should develop a draft and include once it had been finalised (possibly after some trialling) include it as a space page to guide people. 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Kudnarto-3

---

But you still have "Tasmania" (something that did not exist until 1856) in birth and death data fields, for a time when there was NO Tasmania (1775 for birth (at best it might have been "Anthony van Diemen's Land" for the first non-indigenous name given it, but I'm not sure how much that was ever used and I would far rather see Trouwunna as the location)).  This should be corrected, with the "now known as Tasmania" added to the biography (in the same way it explains "Tebrikunna, now known as Cape Portland").

His birth location in the data field should be Tebrikunna, Trouwunna.   His death location in the data field is probably ok as Wybalenna, Flinders Island .. but it should NOT say "Tasmania.  Van Diemen's Land is (unfortunately) the more appropriate due to the year, so Wybalenna, Flinders Island, Van Diemen's Land.

Also, as Simon indicated, the word "tribes" shouldn't be used.  I'm not a member of the Indigenous Australians Project, but I prefer "people" or "peoples", although I guess clan can work.

---

Melanie, I am suggesting that at a first point of call, we should attempt to identify a clan as a LNAB.

Please see the link in the draft structure.

To me having a collective identifier as a first name such as a people (nation), clan, or even a very broad language group is problematic for many reasons.

To assist further with smoothing any issues, as well as creating awareness of the different Indigenous Nations/peoples and clans, I have also been working on the category structure. At the moment, this has been a little trial and error, but it is getting there slowly. In many cases, this level of information is there if you link it to a profile and do a bit of (genealogical) research, including adding in-line sources.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Indigenous_Australians

---

So, Palawa Mannalargenna would be better as Mannalargenna Pairrebeenne?

Or is there some other peoples name that would better fit him?

(edit to add: I do way better with places)

(edit#2: correcting a missing "a" .. and I still do way better with places)

---

I believe so. This is what I have been angling for.

I just wanted to whole concept to be a little more complete before sharing it to prevent a wild discussion about a topic that can be quite sensitive.

I feel over time awareness and literacy about these type of things will improve and perhaps the naming convention as well, but I believe this is a substantial improvement on what exists currently.

The will be especially so if the profiles are also categorised well in a hierarchy of Nation and clan. Then attempt to do language groups, but this is far more complicated. Often Nation refers to both place and people

---

If my vote counts for anything, I support the use of peoples names (nation, mob, language group (if that's all that is known)) as "last" names.

---

The main driver for all this work was attempting to connect some of the work Christopher had done on creating so many wonderful profiles to the broader family tree. I came across all these problems when I was attempting to connect descendants of these profiles.

This is what I am going to focus my connect-a-thon efforts on.

---

Thanks Melanie, so we now have on Mannalargenna's profile for the birth - Born 1775 in Tebrikunna, Trouwunna.

For his death we have -
Died 4 Dec 1835 in Wybalenna, Flinders Island, Van Diemen's Land, Australia because 'Australia' first appears on Matthew Flinder's map of 1804. I can remove it if you think it didn't apply to what is now known as Tasmania until later?

---

I know Flinders used the word Australia long before it was adopted by TPTB back in the mother country.  (I love that the very first images from space showed just how accurate his mapping had been!)

I won't argue the addition of Australia.  Thanks for making the changes.  :)

I hope we see more of the original names (if known) on these earlier profiles.  It gives just a little back to peoples who were stripped of everything.

---

There was another recommendation made by Melanie, which seems to have been ignored?

There has also been a suggestion outside of G2G suggesting that I have acted unilaterally on progressing these discussions and that I have not included the broader community or taken note of the suggestions of others

I would like to refer this thread back to this discussion

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/775838/terminology-guidelines-would-this-useful-australia-project

Gillian brought up the terminology guidelines at the top of this thread after I had proposed them in a previous one. She was aiming to move the discussion forward on these issues.

---

Well Melanie you could see that straight away if the 17th Century Dutch explorers who went to the north, west and south coasts saw Tasmania and included that with the big island they called New Holland.

---

@ Simon .. at the time of that linked thread, Aus Project used G2G and fb for communication.  Since the leadership change, however, it is now using googlegroups, which has essentially locked me out of such discussions as take place using that communication venue.   I am, therefore, limited to whatever snippets come my way via G2G after things have been, apparently, decided elsewhere, so please excuse me if my responses don't always "fit".

Also, I think we tend to get a tad "distracted" by other things on which we are working, or with which we are involved, so projects such as this one fall aside if no immediate progress appears to be occurring.  ("We" isn't just the Aus Project .. I think "we" as humans tend to do this.  I think we should call it GADD or GADRHS.)

I think we need to push for some kind of consensus(?) regards how we are to name our folk who only ever had one name (I guess that's what we're doing now, yes?) .. and I don't think "English" names are the way to go unless they were actually called such by their parents.  We need to be giving them back to themselves as best we can.

---

Yes, that was a long time Melanie.

The most up-to-date proposal is the one I have directed you to today.

I was happy to let it progress slowly but at last count, I was receiving around three not-so-polite emails a day about it.

This is what has inspired the need for discussion.

I just note that one of your suggestions was responded to with polite efficiency, the other less so. It does not progress things.

---

So long as the "progress" is not backwards, that counts as a "win", even if it is slow in occurring.

---

The Googlegroup is open to anyone who is interested in the Indigenous Australians Project and you are most welcome to join Melanie. Your comments would be very helpful in that forum. The project should be the arbiter of any major decisions made. I personally believe we should not impose a false LNAB on them particularly when they did not even pass down their own parents names to their descendants, until they had had new names imposed on them by the invaders of their land. Before any such changes are made my suggestion has for sometime been that any major changes be discussed by the Leaders of the Project with a notable representative of the people whose stories we are trying to bring to the attention of a wider world community.

---

"The name Australia had appeared in print before, but only broadly applied to the legendary southern land mass. The earliest printing of this name is in an astronomical treatise published in 1545. With south at the top of the map a small wind head map names the imagined southern land mass ‘Australia’."

---

I do not worship at the shrine of the googlegods (I am not alone in this), thus the switch to using googlegroups instead of fb and G2G has locked me out of any discussions or decision making.  It has also had the effect of causing me to feel "pushed away" from the Australia Project .. something I have noted more than once on G2G.

I would very much like to be part of these discussions and decisions, but not using googlegroups.

I would also love for a decision to be made, so the "naming" as used for those such as Oyster Maggie doesn't look the way it currently does. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Oyster_Maggie-1

I haven't (knowingly) worked on many first peoples profiles, but those I have done were done, I hope, with respect.  The same respect I give to Veterans and babies.

---

Notable members of the people we are discussing created the resource referred to in the draft guidelines. Should we not consider this then strongly as part of our discussion? 

It is from two highly respected Indigenous organisations that assist Indigenous Australians with tracing their genealogy. There is no false LNAB being imposed at all. A clan name refers to an individuals 'mob' or family. It is a specific and highly appropriate collective identifier of the family an individual belonged to, which is why it has been suggested

Please make sure to click on the link clan/language group as an LNAB, within the draft structure for further justification.

---

Oyster Maggie was a Woopaburra woman!

---

Some people believe they were part of the Darumbal nation or language group others believe that had their own identity as a people.

Fortunately, I have worked out a way that this can be categorised to take into account both world views

---

That's an interesting one Melanie. A Native Title Claim gives the Woppaburra ancestors as Yulowa "Weerrobilling", Nellie "Oorang-ooran", Oyster Maggie and Fanny Lhose/Singh. It looks as though the wikitree profile has been created by a descendant.

---

I have already read it and it naturally does not address the specific question we are asking. Hence I have as previously suggested we adopt the personal approach.

---

Can you please outline your personal approach and what it involves? Can you provide some justification?

Can you also please outline what questions you are seeking answers for? and how this does not address them?

I don't see how giving a person a first name that refers to their Nation as respectful, nor does it help connect them to their family which is what the LNAB field is intended for. Or is this misguided Australia Chris?

Does how you write your proposals "use their conventions instead of ours." or just your 'expert personal approach'. I cannot see a single 'Palawa' profile that does this for example.

The profile for Kudnarto described her 'yerta' when she was born in quite specific detail. This represents her clan or her 'mob', quite specifically. It represents the name passed down by her family with which she identifies with.

Indigenous ways of knowing involve identifying themselves based on their connection to clan and country their 'mob'.

This is why including this as a LNAB is important

Kudarto or the correct name she was given after she survived infancy is not this kind of name. The way she would identify with her family is by her clan or mob. Kudnarto's yerta is 'Padnaindi' by the convention of "use their conventions instead of ours." this should be used and why I have chosen to link this discussion to specific profiles rather than being philosophical abou it. This is the way Indigenous Australians identify themselves still today. It is established and strong part of culture.  

Last Name at Birth

This field could also be called Proper Last Name, Surname, or Maiden Name.

It is generally a family name but it could be a patronymic or whatever other standard is conventional for the person's time and place.

It is usually the formal name as it appears in official documents at the time of birth. However, it may not be exactly what appears in a birth record if:

• There was a spelling mistake or error in the document, or if the family name was more commonly spelled in a different way at the time of the birth (see the spelling conventions section above).
• The person was adopted as an infant and they never used their birth name.

"Dit" names should not go in this field. They can go in the Current Last Name, Other Last Name, or Nickname field, as appropriate.

If the last name is unknown, use Unknown in the field. Do not use Not Sure, NN, Wife of X, Adopted, etc.

Kudnarto was clearly a first name at birth and if you read her profile this is very very clear. It fits the definition of a proper first name by the convention of "use their conventions instead of ours."

Proper First Name

This field could also be called Formal First Name or First Name at Birth.

This is the formal given name that would appear in official documents.

If a person's name officially changed during their lifetime, this field should contain their first name at birth — unless their first name was officially changed soon after birth, e.g. with an infant adoption, or if the birth certificate was amended or corrected. You may want to put their first name at death in the Preferred First Name field but that field is not as formal. (See below). Either way, explain the name change in the biographical text.

This is a required field and cannot be left blank.

• If you're unsure of the Proper First Name, enter Unknown. If you can make an educated guess, enter that and mark the status as "uncertain". You might also wish to explain it in the biographical text. Do not use NN, or something like Twin, Daughter of X, Husband of Y, etc.
• If an infant died before he or she could be named use what is on their death record according to their conventions, otherwise use Unnamed Infant. Do not use Infant Boy, Baby Girl, etc. There is a gender field for this.
• If you want extra privacy enter Anonymous or the first initial. Do not enter Living or a fake name or alias.

---

For peoples without what are generally regarded as "first" and "last" names, it makes sense to place their normal "use-name" in the first name field and their familial affiliation (mob, language group, nation, whatever their traditionally claimed geographical area was known as (if nothing else can be determined) in the last name field.

Thus my friend from primary school would be known as Alice Ganai rather than Alice "Smith".  (If she'd ever been given a name other than Alice, I never knew it .. and I doubt she did, either, as she was taken from her family before she came to my school as the foster child of a white couple.)

---

In the case of the profile under discussion "using their conventions instead of ours., she would introduce herself by something like.

"I am Kudnarto, a Kaurna woman from the Padnaindi clan"

---

Then .. a "best choice" last name would be Padnaindi?

---

Kudnarto is staying in the first name at birth place because that was her first name at birth. It is you who are disrespectful in trying to impose an LNAB that remains the same through several generations, as they did not hand down their names as the whitefellas did. I will not discuss this matter any further until you have proof that that is what they want as I have suggested several times and you have tried to brush off, as well as not sharing you ideas with the Googlegroup and it's leaders.

---

I suggest we stop discussing the matter, in the whitefella way, and get the opinion of the people who are involved as I have mentioned to Simon several times.

---

Christopher, this was discussed in the googlegroup and support was given for the development of a naming structure based on the reference supplied. Clan names have persisted for generations and many Indigenous people identify themselves by their clan for genealogical purposes as evidenced by the source I provided. Indigenous Australians continue to identify themselves by the clans of their ancestors. I am not imposing a LNAB, it is provided as part of a reference that you supplied. G2G and googlegroups are an appropriate medium for discussion for this project and this whole discussion can be transferred easily between each site. The leaders when they are active also monitor this page.

I have provided ample evidence as evidence in the draft naming structure, Kudnarto's profile and this thread. 

Please refer to the Wikitree honor code regarding courtesy

I have not been perfectly following this, but I have been trying my best

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Courtesy

I have continued to provide your with sources of where I have gotten my information but they seem to have been disregarded. I have not yet seen any sources from you that I can have the chance to consider. It would be courteous if you would be so kind to do so.

Finally,

I am curious. “You clearly feel very strongly about this. As I have asked many times, can you please tell me why you would prefer to persist with the current naming structure and tell me more about your personal approach.

Notwithstanding the leaders of the group and the Indigenous Australian resources provided, I feel this is the only way a resolution can be reached. 

Answer 2

What happened in Europe before surnames were adopted? I would imagine this would need to follow the same procedure.

Comments

I believe the Wikitree guideline is to use their conventions instead of ours. instead of European conventions Kenneth. This is what I have proposed from a respected Indigenous source who conducts genealogical research as part of their primary reason for existence but for some reason, it does not satisfy and the proposed alternative is not clear.

A proposal has been outlined. It strikes me as odd that it is not being discussed directly when the honour code suggests that we should aim to progress discussions

---

If you are going by what Indigenous Australian Peoples prefer, then surely that is what we should follow. We have no right to enforce ‘our’ values on them, in fact we owe them the respect of listening to and acting in accordance with their wishes. In the current times a lot use western naming but some still adhere to their ancient ways.

---

I was answering a question on this friendly g2g forum in which we, current genealogists, collaborate: "Indigenous Australians only had one name. How do we create a profile with only a name in the Last name at birth box?" Simon, there was no convention as to last names! Last names IS a European convention.  Marion, no-one is forcing 'our' values on Aboriginal people, least of all me.  Wikitreers are trying to work out how to address a problem in the modern world that didn't 'fit' in an old society, and purely within a genealogical setting.  My response to Christopher's question was just to ask what European nations did hundreds of years ago to fill a new LNAB box.

---

The assertion that Indigenous Australians did not have 'last names' is a false argument. Kinship structures were different and still are but there was a collective identifier for family. Yes,  this identifier can change for a person with marriage. Yes, it can change when people become displaced. This is not unique to Indigenous Australians and clan names persist and did so for generations.

The material I have used as a source is not my own and it is not "whitefella" talk or a "whitefella" way of coming to a resolution. It is sourced from a partnership including:   

* Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency VACCA,

* National Voice for Our Children SNAICC,

* The Koorie Heritage Trust,

*  Federation of Victorian Traditional Owners Corporation

These are all organisations led by Indigenous Australians. I feel they should be listened to when they provide their version of what a collective identifier for family is. I don't think it can be made any clearer than that. You cannot impose what Indigenous communities self-define

---

Please refer to the definition of LNAB copied previously in this thread for further clarification.

---

And you cannot impose (or demand) your will in a collaborative forum.  Please desist from being rude.

---

@ Marion, Indigenous ways are ancient but they are also modern and diverse. That is why I have included links to material self-defined by a diverse range of current Indigenous organisations.

---

Thanks for your contribution Kenneth. There is a Wikitree honor code for courtesy that we can all refer to, I have carefully listened to and responded thoughtfully to every comment. That is being collaborative

Answer 3

Here is a Kaurna man referring to using a traditional first name, an order of birth name, and last name during a welcome to country. i.e. traditional Kaurna use of a 'last name'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WWKy9dKv_8

The AIATSIS refers to people having a wide variety of names including traditional names and kinship names

https://aiatsis.gov.au/research/finding-your-family/before-you-start/indigenous-names

and them being challenging but important for family history research, which is what Wikitree is all about.

While it is not perfect many Indigenous Australians need to understand their relationships to family to be connected and recognised as Indigenous. This is why adding even a non-precise family or kinship identifier is important. The scale of this identifier is important. Too specific and there will be very limited knowledge (i.e skin name, moiety, totem). Too broad and it will be less useful for identifying the family (i.e Nation - very large and not specific to family) Knowing and being connected to your clan is one of the most successful ways of identifying family used by Indigenous organisations and was widely used culturally both before the invasion and after. Many Indigenous Australians use this terminology as a way of establishing their identity as identified in the next link. That it was used by the government "whitefellas" for this purpose is almost irrelevant. It was a practice informed by "their conventions not ours"

A standard approach to this will not be found.

https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/aboriginal-identity-who-is-aboriginal

However, a family collective identifier for linking a person to ancestral country is extremely important for Indigenous genealogy. A belief of what 'whitefellas' did or not do to Indigenous names, particularly one that is not sourced or verified that limits the names used at top of a profile (searchable terms) severely limits the usefulness of Wikitree for Indigenous Australian genealogical purposes. 

I hope that we can respect this in further discussion on this matter and if a contrary view is presented that it is backed with this type of reasoned approach and sources to assist the discussion. Please consider that the reason we only have "one name" for Indigenous Australians is not that they only had one name but that only one name was often provided (orally) 

Thanks for listening and engaging.

I will prepare a space page soon to communicate the proposal in a more detailed proposal.

Answer 4

I have heard that checking of indigenous names sooner or later will be scarce. As they stopped keeping track in far north.

Answer 5

This discussion has progressed and guidelines are close to complete.

There is a series of 8 short videos developed by Sydney University on kinship structures. 

https://sydney.edu.au/about-us/vision-and-values/our-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-community/kinship-module.html

Please have a look at them and check out the progress on the naming structure.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Indigenous_Australians_Background_to_Naming

Hopefully we can finally move forward on this