Franks and Normans in the Mediterranean:

A Comparative Examination
of Naming Patterns
Iris Shagrir, The Open University of Israel (irissh@openu.ac.il)

Abstract: This paper examines comparatively the naming patterns

of the Normans of southern Italy and the Latins of the Crusader
Kingdom of Jerusalemtwo regions that were targets of Western
Latin conquest and migration. Based on the premise that naming
preferences reveal cultural, social, and religious attitudes, recent
studies of the anthroponymic patterns of medieval European and
Mediterranean regions aim at exploring the cultural ties, influences,
and barriers between different religious and social groups, and the
interaction between immigration/colonization and naming patterns. The
comparative analysis reveals the uniqueness of each group and adds a
perspective to the question of the cultural identity of these groups, which has
not hith-erto been examined in a comparative and quantitative manner.
Keywords: Latin kingdom of Jerusalem; Normans; medieval anthroponymy; naming patterns; Norman Sicily.
This research was supported by a grant from the Israel Science
Foundation 663/2014.

N 15 JULY 1099, the armies of the First Crusade captured Jerusalem

and established the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem. The crusaders
responded to Pope Urban IIs call at Clermont to come to the aid of the
eastern Christians and liberate the holy places of Christendom. The crusaders who eventually became settlers and those who followed them to the
East were Latins from Western Europe who became known as Franks.
Earlier in the eleventh century, perhaps as early as the 1010s, groups
of Normans from the Duchy of Normandy in northern France began to
infiltrate southern Italy and seek their fortunes there. Initially they acted
as mercenaries in the service of local princes. They gradually emancipated
themselves and settled in strongholds along the western coastal region; in
later decades, they expanded by conquest into Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily.

60IRIS SHAGRIR

Studies of mass Latin western settlement in new areas in the eleventh and twelfth centuries have been engaged in a continuous discussion
on the extent of assimilation of the immigrating groups and the modes
of their adaptation to the new surroundings. Scholars have explored the
similarities and the differences among those which were based on ethnic or
religious conquest.1

With the creation of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem in the wake
of the First Crusade began a continued encounter of nearly two-hundred
years between the western settlers, known as Franks, and the indigenous
population, namely Eastern Christians and Muslims, who remained the
demographic majority in the Latin kingdom until 1291. The intercultural encounter between the Latins and the indigenous communities in
Palestine and Syria included most spheres of social, institutional, and
religious life. The relationship between these groups has been the subject of an ongoing study. Recently, David Jacoby, in the conclusion of a
survey of the diverse manifestations of intercultural encounters between
the Franks and the native population of the Holy Land, stated that the
individual and collective encounter between Franks and Oriental populations in the kingdom of Jerusalem was a multi-layered and complex
phenomenon but on the whole, everyday encounters restricted only
marginally the permanent sense of alterity between the settler and
native populations.2 Recent attempts to problematize the modes of intercultural transfer have noted the considerable divergence of opinion on
the question of cultural borrowing in the Levant, and tried to develop a

1
Graham A. Loud, How Norman Was the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy?,
Nottingham Medieval Studies 25 (1981): 1334; Patrick Geary, Ethnic Identity as a Situational Construct in the Early Middle Ages, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft
in Wien 113 (1983): 1526; Robert Bartlett, Colonial Aristocracies of the High Middle
Ages, in Medieval Frontier Societies, ed. R. Bartlett and A. Mackay (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1989), pp. 2347; Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 9501350 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), esp. pp.
197220, 22142; Hybride Kulturen im mittelalterlichen Europa: Vortrge und Workshops
einer internationalen Frhlingsschule, ed. Michael Borgolte and Bernd Schneidmller (Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2010).
2
David Jacoby, Intercultural Encounters in a Conquered Land: The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, in Europa im Geflecht der
Welt: Mittelalterliche Migrationen in globalen Bezgen, ed. Michael Borgolte et al. (Berlin:
Oldenbourg Akademieverlag, 2012),pp. 13354, at pp. 15354.

FRANKS AND NORMANS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN61

set of applicable working tools, while emphasizing the importance of the

comparative approach.3

Studies of the Norman settlement in southern Italy and Sicily have
long debated similar issues, focusing on the question of how discernible
and enduring was the sense of Norman identity among the Normans in
the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The scholarly discussion identified
the indicators of growing social and cultural assimilation, such as the
marked decrease in the use of the signifier Normannus in charters, the
growing rate of intermarriage between Norman men and local women,
as well as the impact of factors such as the Normans overall small numbers and the slow pace of their colonization. Thus, it has been argued,
their sense of identity faded, albeit gradually.4 This description has
been contested, with arguments suggesting the existence of an enduring
sense of ethnic identity in both the immigrant and indigenous societies
of southern Italy.5

In the case of both societies then, the picture that emerges is still a
complex one. The notion pronounced by Joshua Prawer in relation to the
Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, describing it as a segregated society, has been
considerably modified in studies conducted throughout the last decades,6
but nonetheless, and rightly so, is echoed in Jacobys notion of a permanent sense of alterity. In comparing these two societies, regarded as
colonies in the sense of a new plantation of outsiders,7 the uniqueness of
the colonial state of the kingdom of Jerusalem was emphasized. While
the crusaders [made a] conscious effort to create a partition between two
societies, according to Prawer, southern Italy eventually created, through

David Jacoby, Intercultural Encounters, pp. 13354; Benjamin Z. Kedar and Cyril
Aslanov, Problems in the Study of Trans-Cultural Borrowing in the Frankish Levant, in
Hybride Kulturen im mittelalterlichen Europa: Vortrge und Workshops einer internationalen
Frhlingsschule, ed. Michael Borgolte and Bernd Schneidmller (Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
2010), pp. 27785.
4
Graham A. Loud, Norman Traditions in Southern Italy, in Norman Tradition and
Transcultural Heritage: Exchange of Cultures in the Norman Peripheries of Medieval Europe,
ed. S. Burkhardt and T. Foerster (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 3556, at p. 43.
5
Joanna H. Drell, Cultural Syncretism and Ethnic Identity: The Norman Conquest
of Southern Italy and Sicily, Journal of Medieval History 25 (1999): 187202.
6
For a useful discussion of scholarly attitudes and the historiography of the question,
see Ronnie Ellenblum, Crusader Castles and Modern Histories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 4955.
7
Bartlett, Colonial Aristocracies, p. 24.
3

62IRIS SHAGRIR

a process of assimilation and eventual integration, one society.8 Hubert

Houben wrote that the secret of the Normans success was their ability
to adapt rapidly to situations and surroundings.9 John France, speaking
specifically of the Norman component in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem
and in the Norman kingdom in southern Italy, found that the Norman
identity in the Levant was short lived, while the entity created in southern
Italy lacked from the outset any sharply defined identity.10

In his study of medieval colonial aristocracies, Robert Bartlett observed
that their name stocks are characterized by a vast preponderance of names
of northern French provenance.11 Following this line of thought, this paper
is an attempt to contribute to the comparison between two immigrant societies through an analysis of their anthroponymic patterns, and secondarily,
to contribute to the understanding of the diversity of the various European
long-distance settlements. The issue of personal names as related to the complex question of Norman identity in southern Italy has been addressed in the
past, but not often in a comparative and quantitative manner.12 It is my aim
here to attempt to determine whether evidence from the name-giving practices of the settlers corroborates the similarities or the differences between
these immigrant groups, and perhaps contribute indirectly to the question
of the groups internal identity. For this purpose I will compare the naming
patterns of the Latin settlers in the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem with the
personal-name patterns of the Franco-Norman settlers in southern Italy and
Sicily in the period after their initial settlement; that is, in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries for the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem and the eleventh
and twelfth centuries for southern Italy.
8
Joshua Prawer, The Roots of Medieval Colonialism, in The Meeting of Two Worlds:
Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades, ed. VladimirP.
Gross (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1986), pp. 2337, at p. 29; also unlike
southern Italy and Sicily, the Kingdom of Jerusalem never became a bridge between east
and west, in The Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem: The First European Colonial Society?
A Symposium, in The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi,
1992), pp. 34166, at p. 365.
9
H. Houben, Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West, trans. Graham A. Loud
and D. Milburn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 12.
10
John France, The Normans and Crusading, in The Normans and their Adversaries
at War: Essays in Memory of C. Warren-Hollister, ed. R.P. Abels and D.S. Bachrach (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2001), pp. 87101, at p. 89.
11
Bartlett, Colonial Aristocracies, pp. 2526.
12
Drell commented that the issue of names for Southern Italyespecially during
the Norman periodis complex and perhaps ultimately an exercise in frustration. Drell,
Cultural Syncretism and Ethnic Identity, p. 196.

FRANKS AND NORMANS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN63

Method and Construction of the Database

Over recent decades a set of standard methodologies for anthroponymic
studies has been developed and adopted by scholars working in the field.13
Anthroponymists have applied these methods to large and small databases
of personal names collected, mostly, from medieval European charters that
record the names of the individuals who issued, received, or witnessed
them. The specific link between anthroponymy and migration has also
been recently studied, especially as reflected in the patterns of by-names.14

For the present study, I use the database constructed for the study of
first-name patterns of the Franks of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem.15 This
database contains over 6,100 personal names that were collected from the
formal acts of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, mainly from documents collected by R. Rhricht in Regesta Regni
Hierosolymitani and its Additamentum, and the additions in G. Bresc-Bautiers Le Cartulaire du Chapitre du Saint Spulchre de Jrusalem.16 For efficacy of analysis and comparison, the database was divided into six chronological periods, each of approximately thirty years: 110029, 113059,
116089, 11901219, 122049, and 125091.17

13

2008).

Pascal Chareille,Le nom, histoire et statistique (Tours: Publications de lUniversit,

14
Iris Shagrir, Bynames in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, in Anthroponymie
et dplacements dans la Chrtient mdivale, Collection de la Casa de Velzquez, 115, ed.
Monique Bourin and Pascual Martnez Sopena (Madrid: Casa de Velzquez, 2010), pp.
22945.
15
Iris Shagrir, Naming Patterns in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford: The Unit
for Prosopographical Research, 2003), esp. pp. 1519.
16
Additional sources surveyed are Reinhold Rhricht, Syria Sacra, Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 10 (1887): 149; Valeria Polonio, Notai Genovesi in Oltremare:
Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (1300-1301) (Genoa: Universita di Genova,
1982); Michel Balard, Notai Genovesi in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (12961299) (Genoa: Universita di Genova, 1983); Michel Balard, Notai Genovesi
in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Cipro da Lamberto di Sambuceto (13041305, 1307) (Genoa:
Universita di Genova, 1984); Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden fr Templer und Johanniter (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972); Rudolf Hiestand, Papsturkunden fr
Kirchen im Heiligen Lande (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985); Laura Balletto,
Fonti notarili genovesi del secondo Duccento per la storia del Regno Latino di Gerusalemme, in I Comuni Italiani nel regno crociato di Gerusalemme, ed. Gabriella Airaldi and
B.Z. Kedar (Genoa: UniversitdiGenova, 1986); Laura Balletto, Notai Genovesi in Oltremare: Atti rogati a Laiazzo (Genoa: Universita di Genova, 1989), pp. 175279.
17
This is the most common periodization in anthroponymic studies.

64IRIS SHAGRIR

The results of the statistical tests performed on the database of the
Latin kingdom were comprehensively compared with findings from Western Europe, with the double aim of determining the characteristics of Latin
society in the Holy Land, and the extent of its conformity or divergence,
compared to the settlers areas of origin in Western Europe.

The names constituting the Norman database were drawn from
the inventory compiled by Leon-Robert Mnager in 1975, and from the
additional list he compiled in 1981.18 Mnagers prosopographic inventory
was compiled for the purpose of identifying the Norman immigrants to
southern Italy according to their social and geographical area of origin, to
discover the reasons for their migration from northwestern Europe, and to
learn about the structures of their settlement. This aimed to provide a basis
for understanding the Italo-Norman phenomenon itself, and for placing it
within the context of conquest and mass migrations of Western Europeans
in the Mediterranean of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.19 The inventory uses rigorous criteria to identify all the Normans mentioned in eleventh- and twelfth-century documents, and contains about 450 personal
names.20 For convenience of comparison, this data file was also divided
into six roughly generational periods of about thirty years each: 101039,
104069, 107099, 110029, 113059, and 116099.
18
Leon R. Mnager, Inventaire des familles normandes et franques migres en Italie
mridionale et en Sicile (XIXII sicles), in Roberto il Guiscardo e il suo tempo: Relazioni e
comunicazioni nelle Prime Giornate normannosveve (Bari, Maggio, 1973) (Roma: Centro
di Ricerca Editore, 1975), pp. 260389; The additional list was compiled for the Variorum
edition of the article Additions linventaire des familles normandes et franques migres
en Italie mridionale et en Sicile, in Hommes et institutions de lItalie normande, ed. Lon R.
Mnager (London: Variorum Reprints, 1981), no. 4, pp. 260390; The additional list was
drawn from Leon R. Mnager, Recueil des actes des ducs normands dItalie, 10461127, vol.
1: Les premiers ducs (104687) (Bari: Bigiemme, 1980). These are earlier acts of the Norman
dukes of Italy, from the time of Drogo of Hauteville, count of Apulia (104651) to the time
of William, duke of Apulia and Calabria (111127). According to Mnager, no acts survived
from the time of William Bras de Fer (104246), the first Norman Count of Apulia.
19
Hommes et institutions de lItalie normande, p. ii. Mnager uses five criteria for establishing the Norman origin of an individual: a) a first name of Scandinavian origin; b) a
by-name of Norman toponymic origin; c) a Norman family name or patronymic; d) use
of the by-name Normannus; e) declaration of Norman origin. The issues of identifying
immigrants and discerning ethnic origin are discussed by Mnager in his article Pesanteur
et tiologie de la colonisation normande dItalie, in Hommes et institutions de lItalie normande, pp. 189214.
20
Donald Matthew commented on this in his book: That such low numbers grossly
misrepresent the extent of Norman, and indeed French, immigration is hardly disputable,
The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 140.

FRANKS AND NORMANS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN65

In both databases most of the individuals recorded are male adults;
as in most medieval documents of the type used in this study, womens
names are scarce. In both cases the repertoire of personal names is biased
to a significant degree towards the aristocracy, the social group that is generally the best reflected in written charters of the medieval diasporas. Each
individual was entered into the database once with the earliest date on
record (i.e., each person is attached to the period of first mention), in order
to minimize the time elapsed since birth, thus reflecting more accurately
the prevalent preferences at the time of name-giving.

Having previously identified the major trends among the Latin settlers in the Holy Land and the extent to which they are in line with Western Europe,21 I will attempt to determine whether the Norman settlers
in southern Italy and Sicily display particular characteristics, and which
of these they share with Western Europe on one hand and with the Holy
Land on the other.

The Naming Patterns of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem

The main findings from the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem show that the
Latin settlement in the Levant was in its general outline a Western European society, with which it shared several important characteristics:

A rise in the popularity of Latin names and a decline in the pop ularity of Germanic names.

An increasing use of central saints names at the expense of names
of minor saints and non-saint names.

No name that was distinctly Greek-Byzantine and unknown in
Western Europe entered the name stock of the settlers in the
Holy Land.
However, the specific name choices of the Franks in the Holy Land differ
from name preferences in Western Europe:

The early popularity and relatively high rate of use of the names
of major saintsJohn, Peter, James (Jacobus), Nicholas, Philip,
and Thomasis unique. This may suggest the influence of the
contact with the indienous Oriental Christians, among whom
these name were widely used long before they became highly
21

Shagrir, Naming Patterns in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, pp. 6091.

66IRIS SHAGRIR

popular in Western Europe. John was the most popular name

among the Franks from the 1190s onwards, less than a century
after the initial Frankish settlement. The name John was par ticularly popular among the nobility of the kingdom of Jeru salem. This finding differs from findings in Western Europe,
where the nobility was particularly slow to adopt names of
Christian significance in general, including saints names.

In the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem there were more names in
circulation than in the name-stocks of Western Europe, due
apparently to the more heterogeneous social complexion.
These findings demonstrate that various European traditions converged in
the kingdom of Jerusalem. As indeed is to be expected, the personal names
reflect the heterogeneous European origins of the Franks. It also appears
that the name preferences of Oriental Christians had an impact on the
preferences of the Franks. While it is important to note that this impact
was limited to Oriental Christian names that were familiar though not frequent in the Latin West, it is nonetheless a unique finding in comparison
to other immigrant-settler groups, where the politically dominant group
almost never adopted the naming patterns of the indigenous population.22

In sum, together with the general similarity between the kingdom of
Jerusalem and Western Europe, the Latins of the kingdom of Jerusalem replicated neither the western nor the eastern model in their selection of most
preferred names. Hence, the findings support the hypothesis that Frankish
cultural practices integrated both European and Oriental elements.23

The Naming Patterns of the Normans

in Southern Italy and Sicily
The findings from the name repertory of Normans in Italy are the following:
A rise in the popularity of Latin names (Figure 1) and a decline
in the use of personal names of Germanic origin (Figure 2).
A rise in the popularity of saints names (Figure 3). The saints
names that appear in the name stock are John, Peter, Stephen,
Thomas, Simon, Leo, Matthew, and Philip.
Hugh M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation and
Identity 1066c.1220 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 99.
23
For a detailed discussion, see Shagrir, Naming Patterns, chap. 5.
22

FRANKS AND NORMANS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN67

Figure 1: Rise in Latin names in the 12th century

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

11001129

11301159

Kingdom of Jerusalem

11601190

Norman Italy

Figure 1: Rise in Germanic names in the 12th century

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

11001129
Jerusalem

11301159

11601190
Italy

68IRIS SHAGRIR

Figure 1: Rise in saints names in the 12th century

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

11001129

11301159

Kingdom of Jerusalem

11601190
Norman Italy

These two evolutions above are in accord with the Western European trend.
The list of dominant names (Table 1) shows that in most of the
period under study, all the dominant names are Germanic, most
being of a distinctly Norman/Scandinavian origin.24 The only
non-Germanic name is John, which leaps to the top of the list
in the last third of the twelfth century. It should be remembered
that in central and southern Italy before the Normans, Latin
names were very common and this makes the division between
local and settler groups even sharper.25

24
The very popular William, Robert, and Richard are typical Norman/Northern French
names. Godfrey: Ralph (Norman, Scandinavian); Roger: Hugh, Walterall fairly common
in northern France, and often with an aristocratic flavor. The other popular names are
again all of Norman/Scandinavian origin: Osmond (Asmundr); Anschetillus/Anschetinus
(Ansketill); Nigel (Iro-Norwegian); Osborn (Asbiorn); Trostainus (Thorgisl); Turgisius.
25
See Pierre Toubert, Les noms de personnes dans le Latium (10e12e sicles), in
Les structures du Latium mdival, ed. Pierre Toubert (Rome: cole franaise de Rome,
1973), pp. 69399.

FRANKS AND NORMANS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN69

Table 1: Most dominant names in Norman Italy and the

Kingdom of Jerusalem: Frequencies and Concentration
Norman Italy

11001129
11301159
11601199

% C*
% C*
% C*
Robertus
9 36 Willelmus 15 45 Johannes
11 48
Willelmus 8
Robertus
10
Willelmus 11
Goffredus 7
Ricardus
8
Rogerius
11
Osmundus 6
Johannes
7
Goffredus 7
Radulfus
6
Goffredus 5
Radulfus
7
Anscettinus 5
Anscettinus 5
Osbernus
7
Hugo
5
Osbernus
3
Anscettinus 5
Ricardus
5
Trostainus 3
Turgisius
5
Kingdom of Jerusalem

11001129
11301159
11601189

% C*
% C*
% C*
Willelmus 6 24 Petrus
7 25 Petrus
7 27
Petrus
5
Willelmus 7
Willelmus 6
Hugo
5
Johannes
4
Johannes
6
Gerardus
4
Gerardus
4
Hugo
4
Robertus
4
Robertus
3
Bernardus 4
Radulfus
3
Galterius
3
Raimundus 3
Gaufridus 2
Hugo
3
Stephanus 2
Raimundus 2
Stephanus 3
Renaldus
2
* C = Concentration (accumulated frequency of top five names)

Another remarkable finding concerns the statistical measure of

concentration. Concentration is the accumulated frequency,
represented in percentages, of the names at the top of the list
(Table 1). In the study, concentration is defined as the accumulated frequency of the top five names. It is computed by adding
the frequencies of each name down to the fifth most-frequent
name. The concentration index of the Normans in Italy in the
twelfth century is relatively high, and shows an increase from
36 percent to 48 percent. A trend of increasing concentration
over time reflects the clustering of the common preferences and
indicates a growing number of people carrying the same names.
As a social phenomenon, greater homonymity may reflect greater
socio-cultural cohesion.

70IRIS SHAGRIR

Overall, the Normans in Italy display the general European evolution

of a rise in Latin names and saints names, and a decline in Germanic
names. These findings among the Normans in southern Italy do not seem
to indicate a strong impact of local, indigenous traditions. As in the name
repertory of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, no names that are typically Greek-Byzantine (Leo, Sergius, Constantine) or Lombard (Landolf )
became popular among the Normans.26 Thus, if there was any melting
pot assimilation between Normans and the local population, it is not
evident in the anthroponymic patterns.27

Comparative Findings
In the kingdom of Jerusalem, as in Norman Italy, there is a resemblance to Western Europe in terms of the general evolution of an
increase in Latin and saints names and a decrease in Germanic
names (Figures 1, 2).
However, while the pace of these evolutions in the twelfth century seems to be similar, the rates in the kingdom of Jerusalem
are noticeably higher.
The same phenomenon occurs in the rise of saints names in the
twelfth century (Figure 3): in both groups, saints names are on
the rise; but in the kingdom of Jerusalem the rates are noticeably
higher.
When comparing the most popular names in the two settlements
in the twelfth century, the difference is clear (Table 1). While
in the kingdom of Jerusalem we see a more heterogeneous pattern of Germanic names from northern and southern France, as
For popular names in southern Italy and Sicily between the tenth and the twelfth
centuries, see Jean-Marie Martin, LItalie Mridionale, in Lanthroponymie, document de
lhistoire sociale des mondes mditerranens mdivaux: Actes du colloque international organis par lEcole Franaise de Rome, ed. Monique Bourin, Jean-Marie Martin, and Franois
Menant (Rome: Ecole Franaise de Rome, 1996), pp. 2939.
27
This, however, does not exclude the possibility of an influence in the opposite directionof Norman names on the local population. Vera von Falkenhausen has noted that a
few years after the Norman conquest many Lombards and Greeks in southern Italy adopted
names from stock of the conquerors, especially those of the Hauteville family. See Vera von
Falkenhausen, The South Italian Sources, Proceedings of the British Academy 132 (2007):
95121, at p. 101. The tendency of the conquered indigenous group to adopt names from
the naming pool of the politically dominant group has been documented elsewhere; see
Thomas, The English and the Normans, pp. 97100.
26

FRANKS AND NORMANS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN71

well as more saints names, among the Normans we see a more

homogenous pattern of the popular names from northern France
and Normandy. Furthermore, while in the middle of the twelfth
century there are three major saints names among the eight
most-popular names in the Holy Land, there is only one among
the Normans. The pattern of the Normans seems to be more
homogenous and unified, and perhaps more resistant to outside,
i.e., local, influences.
With regard to the concentration of the top names, the concentration among the Normans is higher than in the kingdom of
Jerusalem, again strengthening the impression of a tighter and
more cohesive naming pattern. (The concentration in the kingdom of Jerusalem ranges between 2427 percent of the population; in Norman Italy, between 3647 percent.) The rise in the
concentration among the Normans accords with the Western
European phenomenon, while in the kingdom of Jerusalem the
line is relatively stable.

Conclusion
The study of personal names in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem revealed,
indirectly, that in certain respects the settlers were influenced by local
naming practices, and that their habits may be considered as reflecting a
heightened religious awareness. Studied as a whole, the naming patterns
reflect the Latins self-consciousness as a new community with a distinct
sense of identity, as reflected in the words of William of Tyre, the kingdoms most celebrated historian: populum vero Orientalis.28 Without
venturing into the large and complex issue of Norman identity, which
has been debated for many years, 29 it seems that the comparison conducted here may add a perspective to the question. Based on Mnagers
seminal prosopographical study, it has been accepted that at least in the
early years, the proportion of settlers from Normandy and neighboring
regions would naturally engender a prevailing sense of Normannitas. G.
Loud argues that due to the Normans small numbers, and intermarriage,
28

p. 970.

William of Tyre, Chronicon, 21:7, ed. R. B.C. Huygens (Turnhout: Brepols, 1986),

In the words of Nick Webber: The identity of those Normans who established
themselves in Southern Italy and Sicily during the eleventh and twelfth centuries is the
most complicated of Norman identity constructs: Nick Webber, Evolution of Norman
Identity: 9111154 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2005), p. 60.
29

72IRIS SHAGRIR

a process of assimilation and amalgamation of the immigrant and local

cultures in southern Italy occurred, however gradually.30 The naming patterns of the Normans in southern Italy, examined quantitatively over the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, show that the major trends are the same in
southern Italy as in northwestern Europe. Yet, while preserving the general
Latin European pattern, the naming patterns of Normans in Italy seems
to be more cohesive and more resistant than the naming patterns of Latin
settlers in the eastern Mediterranean. Among the Normans there are markedly fewer saints names than in the kingdom of Jerusalem. Naming is
more Norman and less pious. In other words, the Normans in Italy
seem to preserve their original anthroponymic pattern more strongly. This
may result from the fact that the population that settled in southern Italy
was originally more homogenous than the population that settled in Palestine: it is estimated that during the conquest, between two-thirds and
three-quarters of the identifiable newcomers came from Normandy.31 This
ethnic cohesion, coupled with the constant ties with the Duchy of Normandy, the influx from there, and perhaps a higher immigration of Norman women (compared to the Latin East), might have inhibited the process of absorbing local influences.32 Another possible explanation is in line
with Mnagers contention that Norman southern Italy was at least partly
an enterprise of outlaws,33 and their naming preferences, accordingly, do
not reveal a strong religious attitude. In the anthroponymic comparison,
the two immigrant societies examined here do not seem to behave in the
same way, and the findings may call for further thoughts on the question
of their sense of identity.

30
The Society of Norman Italy, ed. Graham Loud and Alex Metcalf (Leiden: Brill,
2002), Introduction, pp. 116, at p. 7; Loud, Norman Traditions in Southern Italy, pp.
4344.
31
Loud, Norman Traditions in Southern Italy, p. 39.
32
Leon R. Mnager, Pesanteur et tiologie, p. 194, concluded, on the basis of
anthroponymic examination that one in four invaders was not a Norman. However, in
a smaller, well-identified group of people, the evidence of toponymic by-names adjusts
this ratio higher, 1 in 3. See also G. Loud, How Norman Was the Norman Conquest of
Southern Italy?, Nottingham Medieval Studies 25 (1981): 2123.
33
Mnager, Pesanteur et tiologie, p. 214; or mercenaries and raiders as their
Viking ancestors had been before them, see Webber, Evolution of Norman Identity, p. 60.
See also Loud, How Norman Was the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy?, pp. 1920,
and John France, The Normans and Crusading, p. 93.