Fishers in the British Isles

Fisher is a high frequency, polygenic surname. However, notwithstanding the impression of the map of UK Fishers in 2001 conveys, the distribution and frequency of the surname is not as overwhelming as this statement suggests. Today there are still counties in England where the surname is very scarce and in others it is common. It is most densely distributed in the central area of England most notably in Nottinghamshire and Berkshire. The exception is Cumbria where the highest density of Fisher families is recorded.

The surname has widespread origins in England. Its presence in all other countries, with the possible exception of Scotland, occurs only through historical immigration. It remains unclear whether the name first appeared in Scotland as a result of immigration or by the surname developing contemporaneously in the Scots-speaking Lowlands. The latter is the most likely as it has been observed (Black, 1946) that in the 12th and 13th centuries Scottish townsfolk were largely English and Flemish.

Any Fisher settlers in Ireland would probably be consequent to the plantation of Ulster, which began in 1609 and most likely be Scottish in origin. Whatever the cause, total numbers in both Eire and Ulster are small.

Distribution Analysis

The 1881 Census of England, Wales and Scotland enumerated over 35,000 Fishers. Of these, 8.7% were found in Scotland and 2.8% were found in Wales. The small percentage in Wales, despite its long political connection with England, is at first surprising until we consider the Welsh tradition for patronymics. Is it possible that early Fisher emigrants into Wales adopted the Welsh naming tradition and substituted their English name for Thomas, Jones or Davies?

The highest frequency of Fishers are to be found in the conurbations of London (11%), Lancashire (10%) and Yorkshire (11%). The adjacent counties of Surrey, Essex and Kent are distorted by their proximity to the great metropolis of London. Since medieval times the population of London has been inflated by a constant flow of migrants from all over the British Isles rendering any surname analysis in this area almost meaningless.

Mapping the relative population density of a surname purports to indicate its earliest geographical origins. This technique functions well for rare locative surnames but for a polygenic occupational surname the resulting distribution even in the early 19th century represents a confusing image.

We need a more detailed approach, one that spans the 14th to 20th centuries  and one that focuses on each county to reveal localised clusters that are perhaps centred on sites of medieval fish-farming. This data may identify the geographical origin of individual Fisher families and correlate with the results of the DNA survey.

The difficulty lies with the paucity of national datasets prior to the 19th century. Inevitably analyses in these earlier periods will be restricted to counties where data survives and adopt alternative methods to overcome the shortcomings of the surviving archive.

From the 1841 census we can examine the birthplaces of Fishers at a midpoint during the Industrial Revolution to determine the extent of immigration. Surprisingly the totals of non-indigenous births are small. It would be tempting to assume this indicates that the population distribution is largely undistorted by external migration. The problem with this source is the very nigh ratio of "unknown" (or not given) birthplaces although it is likely that most would have occurred in the British Isles.

This type of analysis should be extended to county-level where it is expected that the degree of localised movement will be significantly higher and challenge the belief that our ancestors rarely moved beyond the boundaries of their "spatial awareness".

The 14th century

The surviving documents of 1377-81 Poll Taxes list some 250,000 people. But it was not a census. Only individuals who were liable for the tax would have been recorded. Although it was imposed throughout England two counties, Cheshire and Durham, were exempt. To roughly equate the coverage of the Poll Tax with the 1881 Census the latter would have recorded the names of the “heads of households” only.

A total of 388 Fishers have so far been identified. Leicestershire, Yorkshire and Norfolk record the highest frequencies although the overall distribution has been distorted by the deficiency of records from many counties. As the coverage of the Poll Tax documents is incomplete we cannot be sure how many Fisher families were living at this time but it is unlikely to be more a few hundred. We have almost no references in Cambridgeshire or Huntingdonshire, two fenland counties where we would expect to find a large number of Fishers. Similarly the records for Cumberland, which has the highest density of Fishers in the 1881 Census, have not survived.

By the time of the Poll Taxes the English population was generally in the latter stages of adopting hereditary surnames. This is apparent from the few Fishers whose occupations were also recorded with their taxes: less than 8% were actually fishermen. A clear indication the majority were second or third generation Fishers whose “surname ancestor” probably lived between 50 and 100 years earlier and whose family was already beginning to ramify in or near their geographical origin.

The Poll Taxes offer a glimpse of where the Fishers are to be found over 600 years ago. The gaps in its coverage may be supplemented by the analysis other medieval taxes. Even from this less than ideal dataset it is reasonable to suggest that some idea of their likely origin can be deduced from the distribution map.

If the Plantegenets had consolidated the poll tax system and had the records survived there would be no need to extrapolate the origins of surnames from modern records. Instead we would have an accurate distribution of surnames in the late 14th/ early 15th century at time when hereditary surnames were first established.

The Peasants Revolt may have precipitated the end of an unpoplar tax but an opportunity to record the earliest detailed homogenous census was lost: Wat Tyler will have few genealogists as friends! 

Contact: fisher@one-name.org