> And remember, that not all surnames were given because of the type of > work the person did. Some were given because they lived NEAR something, > such as a field, mill, inn, tavern, hill, forest, hedge, swamp, etc. and > other surnames were given because of some bodily feature such as color > of hair or skin, lack of hair, height, walking gait, lisp, shape of head > or body, whatever made them stand out from another. Some were also > named for parts they played in pageants, etc. > Barbara > Fair enough, but again: is it more truthful to call those explanations plausible rather than accurate? I mean, is there any actual evidence? Or have the compilers of surname-dictionaries simply ascribed "meanings" to surnames because of their similarities to words in ordinary usage? So "some were given..." should really be "scholars have traditionally told us that some were given...", right? My original question was: does any proof exist that would get past a good auditor? The claim that permanent surnames were given for parts played in pageants, etc, seems rather implausible to me. So a supplementary question might be: what were the "scholars" doing offering implausible explanations, with no proof at all, or even evidence? Gordon Barlow

Gordon, One thing you seem to be forgetting is that when all these surnames started to come into being, people didn't get around much. They lived in small groups and had different given names for each person. Travel was slow and hard so they didn't go far from home. Then, as the populations of the villages grew and travel became a bit easier the given names began to be duplicated so more than one person in a village, or surrounding area, bore it. There had to be a way to differentiate between this John and that one so if John #1 was a baker he was called John the baker and the other might have been John the farmer. Eventually the names were shortened to merely John baker and John farmer and after more time it became John Baker with an upper case -B-. As for people being given names for parts in pageants, they were only nicknames but eventually the person became known by that name, i.e. someone who often played a priest in a yearly pageant would begin to be called "the priest" and eventually just "Priest". I've glanced at some of the introduction in A Dictionary of Surnames and am told by it that the authors did find proof of the origins of the majority of the names they list. Those names of uncertain origin they specifically note as such and give "possibilities" as to origin. Those of unknown origin are also clearly noted as such. You must remember, that most of these people have spent YEARS researching all of these names. They didn't just guess at things and stick them in a book. Patrick Hanks, alone, has been involved with the origins of names for over 25 years. I also read somewhere in this book, though I can't find it with just a quick scan, that this book took 12 years in the making. Hope this helps some. Barbara Gordon Barlow wrote: >>And remember, that not all surnames were given because of the type of >>work the person did. Some were given because they lived NEAR something, >>such as a field, mill, inn, tavern, hill, forest, hedge, swamp, etc. and >>other surnames were given because of some bodily feature such as color >>of hair or skin, lack of hair, height, walking gait, lisp, shape of head >>or body, whatever made them stand out from another. Some were also >>named for parts they played in pageants, etc. >>Barbara >> >> >> >Fair enough, but again: is it more truthful to call those explanations >plausible rather than accurate? I mean, is there any actual evidence? Or >have the compilers of surname-dictionaries simply ascribed "meanings" to >surnames because of their similarities to words in ordinary usage? So "some >were given..." should really be "scholars have traditionally told us that >some were given...", right? > >My original question was: does any proof exist that would get past a good >auditor? The claim that permanent surnames were given for parts played in >pageants, etc, seems rather implausible to me. So a supplementary question >might be: what were the "scholars" doing offering implausible explanations, >with no proof at all, or even evidence? > >Gordon Barlow > > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > >