> Finally there is absolutely no scientific proof of any of the surnames/place-names etc that >appear in these dictionaries. They are compiled by very learnèd scholars, and give good >justified explanations of what could perhaps be the origin, but it is impossible to go back in >any real detail. > Geoff > > However it should be pointed out that it is not an exact science. Jim Thanks very much, chaps. It seems to be reasonable to assume that even learned scholars have usually relied on plausibility to explain surname-origins. Which - I hasten to say - is fair enough. If there is no certainty, then theory must suffice. That's only logical. My question was originally asked simply to establish that fact, if it is indeed a fact. Every once in a while I have noticed that some latter-day scholars (not compilers of the dictionaries) tend to assume that the given origins of surnames are true, whereas what they should have done is to acknowledge that the given origins are plausible. I never quite understood that before. I also mentioned, when I asked my question, that I am an auditor. Even Enron auditors are/were entitled to base some conclusions on plausibility - as long as they acknowledge that the conclusions are provisional and dependant. Enron auditing, Enron etymology - neither is good! Geoff made the excellent distinction between the literate classes and the illiterate in former times. The latter provided the vast majority of Britain's surnames. Whereas there was probably a line of what the Police call "best evidence" connecting the surnames of the early landowners etc to their modern versions, there is no such line in respect of the illiterates'. So, really, nobody KNOWS if the first Mr Miller was a miller: is that right? We can assume so, because it is plausible, but we can't be certain: right? And nobody KNOWS if the first Mr Rose smelt of roses, but we take it as a working hypothesis that he did: is that right? If that is the case, then we must in logic acknowledge that what the surname-dictionaries contain are lists of PLAUSIBLE origins, based mostly on homonyms. Is that right? And that the MEANINGS given for most of the surnames of the British Isles are conditional or provisional? That would give me - and presumably everybody else - a fresh base to work on. I would know that my FIELD ancestors did not necessarily live in a field, and my MILLARD ancestors were not necessarily millers by trade. Speaking for myself, alone: I'm not particularly interested in guessing what ancestors did for a living. I would like to KNOW, but if it isn't possible to know, then the heck with it. They were probably ag-labs, and I no longer need to ask myself why they weren't called FARMER or WORKER. Incidentally, I have read that the surname FIELD in Ireland was actually an English form of native-Irish FEELEY. Sounds plausible enough! Thanks for all the suggestions and comments. Keep those cards and letters coming in, folks!*** Gordon Barlow *** from Dean Martin's TV show, for those old enough to remember!

> > >I would know that my FIELD ancestors did not necessarily live in a >field, and my MILLARD ancestors were not necessarily millers by trade. > 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