<snip> Exceptly, not in these times Gallo-Romans had *no* surnames either, at best in addition to the name later they used descriptions, e.g. of origin from a place, a region, or patronymics (what did others, too). Like in Germany, all over Europe surnames came up during the 13th century 'cause population increased. It became necessary then to differentiate between so many Johns, Peter, Henrys and Fredericks, also amongst the noble families. <snip> Well yes, and as it relates to the Normans one of the important things they did in their feudal system was write things down. This is a change William brought to the Norman system. Grants, inquisitions (like a probate after death), lawsuits and such were written down and preserved. Many still survive after 900 years. And as it relates to the Gallo-Romans, I'm not sure. In modern texts, they have something to more closely identify them, other that simply John. And usually it is something of a place name. But that could simply be an invention of the scribes that republished the original accounts as they became unusable. The Franks also have a similar system with their nobility: Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Charles the Magnificent, etc etc. But those terms weren't used in their times. Those are modern inventions. Travel was a non existent term to most during the earlier periods of this time, and I have read historical accounts telling that most would never leave their remote agricultural village for many generations. As long as the village was small there was no need for surnames as you say. I have read that the first to have a form of surname were those that traded for a village as they would have to travel to other villages to trade. So John might become John of Anytown. And the nobility had a similar problem and would be identified as Gulliame of Lotsaland, etc etc. Well, when these folks went to England with the Normans, they were now known by the town or fief where they originated. So Guilliame of Lotsaland would get a grant of land and it would be recorded by the king. But in vulgar latin, not French, and that means the latin form. Guiliame de la Lotsalandus. Well, the feudal system had very strict rules of inheritance agreed to often at the original time of the grant. It normally went to the eldest male, who might be named Joseph. Then he would become known as Joseph de la Lotsalandus, and so on down it would pass through the generations. Until around the 1300 to 1400's or so, when the "de" or "de la" went out of fashion or something and now it was simply a surname. So the value of having a "Norman" in the family is that the records are often written and preserved, and one can trace the "surname". Bob Fay