I did say ‘maybe’. I think ‘extremely common in the culture’ is misleading - surely farmers were more common than blacksmiths, but because there were too many of them, it wasn’t used as a surname?
OK, there’s some actual evidence that it isn’t coincidence. Thanks, slipster.
Quite right, I think. There was probably only 1 blacksmith in the average village, but dozens of farmers.
So a name like “Farmer” was not very distinctive (but it’s still around as a surname). Many farmers eventually ended up with surnames that were somehow related to where they farmed. So you have surnames like Fields, Littlefield, Oldfield, Winfield, etc. Also Dell, Rivers, Glen, Marsh, Woods, etc. And any surname with a direction in it is likely to be from some ancestor who farmed in that direction from the village: North, Northland, Easton, Westwood, Weston, Southerly, etc. Then there are the surnames from the crop that farmer grew: Barley, Barleycorn, Millet, Wheaton, etc.
So there are probably a whole lot of surnames around for people who were farmers!
The German word for farmer, Bauer (you’ll see Baur a lot, too) is very common. I guess it comes from peasants who migrated to cities. In a village, it indeed would not make much sense to use the term as a surname, because there were so many, but city folk might call their new neighbor coming from rural regions “farmer.”
Just a WAG, but surnames were probably more of a town thing than a country thing. As a farmer, you might be the only Bob for miles around, but in town you’d need to be distinguished from Bob the Barker, Bob the Smith and Bob the Streetsweeper.
I wouldn’t make this assumption. There was a time in England, when most men shared a very small number of given names. There are records of families giving all their sons the same name, Robert, for example. That’s what prompted the creation of a range of diminutives – Rob, Bob, Dob, Hob, Nob, Robin, Bobby, Dobkin, etc.