Survey of English Place-Names

Historical Forms

• Servesed 1086 DB

• Sarueshul(l) 1213 FF 1242 Fees

• Saresweshull' 1225 Cur

• Sareshull 1300 For 1327 Banco 1347 Hatherton

• Sarushul 13th Hatherton

• Sarneshull, Sarneshulf, Sharnshull 13th Duignan

• Sarushulf 1298 Vernon

• Sarushylf 1285 FA

• Sareshulf 1311 Pat

• Saruesculf 1262 For

• Sarveshulf 1326 Vernon

• Savershulf 1262 For

• Sarsculf 1227 CoramR

• Shareweshulf 1252 Cl

• Sharesweshulf 1293 Ass

• S(c)har(e)shulfe 1282 Banco 1303 Var 1310 Fine 1315 CoramR 1316 FA 1347 Wodehouse

• S(c)har(e)shul(l)(e) 1271,1286 For c.1291 Tax 1294 Pat 1570 1307to1353 Banco 1332 SR 1334 FF 1604 1363 Ipm 1427 Fine 1481,1509 Ct 1615 PCC 1657 Comm

• S(c)hareshill, S(c)harshill, S(c)haryshill, S(c)hareshyll, S(c)harshyll, S(c)haryshyll 1370 Ipm 1371 Pat 1469to1536 Ct 1480 Banco 1552 InventChGds

• Shereshull c.1291 Tax 1566 FF

• Shareshall 1695 Morden

• Sharshill 1578 Survey

• Shareshill 1775 Yates 1834 O

Etymology

Shareshill is usually discussed alongside Sharlston YW 2 114ff which raises similar problems though revealing significant differences, the chief being the extreme rarity in St of forms with -n -.Professor Smith (YW 2115) quotes for Shareshill a form Sarneshull 1213, but this is incorrect, the form in FF for that date being Sarueshill . Duignan considered that all his three forms (two of which I have been unable to locate) are probably mistakes or errors in transcription, and this seems highly likely. Smith analyses the difficulties in detail, rightly dismissing the presence of OE  scearn 'dung' suggested by Goodall and Moorman because of the unlikelihood of the S (c )harnes - forms being genuine (but see infra ).He then questions Ekwall's (DEPN s.n.) derivation for both these names from OE  scræf 'cavern, pit, hovel' in the case of Sharlston 'a tūn by a scræf or narrow valley' which is not topographically appropriate there, nor for that matter in connection with Shareshill either. Further, the use of the gen. sg. form in such a compound, he holds, would be unusual, while the supposed metathesis to Sharf - occurs only in these two p.ns. which have in fact none of the normal spellings of scræf as in other p.ns. like Shrawley Wo 78. Smith therefore returns rather diffidently to Moorman's association of it with scearn but in the compound form of scearn -wīfel 'dung-beetle' to account for the various forms in Sharlston YW. But this would be much less applicable to the St name which has no -l - forms. However a late suggestion by Professor Löfvenberg (v. YW 2 Addenda xi) that this might come from an OE  pers.n. Scearf (corresponding to ON  Skarfr , cf. Björkman NP 122), would explain many of the spellings, leaving the Sharn - forms as errors of orthography or transcription. This is most certainly the best solution for Shareshill which has no Sharl - forms at all. In fact everything here would be satisfactorily explained by this solution. I therefore agree with Professor Löfvenberg that this is 'Scearf's hill', v. hyll with a variant in the second el. of scylf (scelf) 'shelving terrain' which is quite applicable to the topographical situation here. For a complete list of the variations in the spelling of the pers.n. derived from Shareshill, v. B. H. Putnam, The Place in Legal History of Sir William Shareshill , 1950, p. 159.