There are a lot of kinds of smiths. There are silversmiths, blacksmiths, coppersmiths (AKA greensmith), goldsmiths, and the names relating to the items being made (shoesmith -- edit: as in horseshoes, knifesmith, etc.). This would lead to the surname being somewhat common.
Patronymica Britannica has a very extensive list of Smith names but also some discussion of the practice: http://books.google.com/?id=00cBAAAAQAAJ
Page xxiii discusses how such names were adopted in Irish areas -- in 1465 there was a legislative mandate to adopt an English surname (though the text notes that it is not possible to really know how closely it was followed), so there is some adoption of a trade as a name.
Table xvi contains data on the distribution of names, and Smith definitely tops the list.
Hello everyone,
Unfortunately, we have already had to remove many poor quality responses in this thread, including several asking about the deleted comments, which merely compound the issue. Please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind our rules concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed.
Answers we are not interested in removing (again) include:
Additionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread.
Thank you!
First of all we should not be tempted to the false assumption, that smiths were the most frequent occupation, just because it is the most frequent occupational surname. There are many other surnames which are not of occupational etymology, for very frequent occupations this is perspicuous, because if everyones name was peasant, the purpose of a surname would have been lost. Surnames emerged as a distinction between persons families. So to serve that purpose the surname had to be somewhat distinctive in the first place.
Carl Gersuny: Occupations, Occupational Surnames And The Developement Of Society in The Journal of Popular Culture, Volume VIII, Issue 1, page 103, 1974:
The frequency of Smith as an occupational surname is attributed not to the large number of smiths but to the functional importance of that occupation in agrarian society.
Furthermore he cites C. M. Matthews: English Surnames, page 79, New York 1966:
On the skill of the smith everyone, rich and poor, depended for the most essential things of life, the tools of husbandry and the weapons of hunting and war.
There was no large number of smiths in one village, with George the smith, as an example, everybody knew who was meant, the smith was important enough that the occupational surname alone was distinctive enough in the locations context. This is also the case for other craftsmen surnames. For occupations not that important/unique other distinctive features had to be used. Keep in mind that a surname could come from every kind of distinction, there are mocknames, hair colours, location names and many more. The occupation was only one of those features.
So the frequency of Smith as a surname has two compounds: The occupation being frequent enough in the wide scope over the whole country to allow the offspring of those smiths to be the top of the surnames in the UK, but also unique enough in small scope that the occupation was sufficient enough for the distinction of a family.
Related question: Is the assumption correct that historically "Smith" referred only to blacksmiths in particular and was not used as a general label for craftsmen?
[Edited: Sometimes I don't grammar so good.]
I always assumed names of common jobs like Smith and Miller were so popular because they were needed at home while wars were happening
Speaking from personal experience with an ex-friend of mine, it's because they all fuck and marry their cousins.