> ELLIOTT: Scot.: Anglicized form of the Gaelic, meaning someone who lived near a dam, mound, or bank. > VARLEY ( English) of uncertain origin, probably a habitation name > SHIELDS: English: someone who lived near the shallow part of a river. > \ CHERNEY, CHARNEY (Czech-Slav.) The dark complected man. > \ CHENAY, CHENEY, CHENE (French) someone who lived near a conspicuous > oak tree, or in an oak forest. The name may also have sometimes been a > nickname for a man with a "heart of oak". > ---Source: A Dictionary of Surnames by Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges. > Barbara May I ask another ignorant (but fundamental, I guess) question about name-origins? How do we KNOW that someone who lived near the shallow part of a river took that location as his or her permanent surname? And, would such a surname have depended on some kind of village tradition? By that I mean: not everybody all over the British Isles took or was given that name, who lived in such a location. So what cultural reference was it that caused only SOME families to have the name? Each of the names reported above (Elliott, Varley, Shields, Cheney) - and a zillion other locational names - they all sound plausible enough. And I am not for a moment suggesting that the derivation is wrong. But, to repeat, how do we KNOW they are right? I suppose what I am asking is, what proof is there? My next thought-process naturally tells me that actual proof might not exist. However, from all I read there is a CERTAINTY about location-names being the origins of certain surnames. When I confess to the List that I am a former accounts-auditor, it will become clear what kind of person I am - viz, the kind who distinguishes between certainty and less-than-certainty! So if someone will be kind enough to satisfy my curiosity onthis point,I will be very grateful. Gordon Barlow