Many philologists would see the true justification of place-name studies in the contribution they make to other linguistic studies. The important point is that, since the place-name scholars material is linguistic, his approach to it must be linguistic. To the interpretation of it he must bring a detailed knowledge of phonological changes and morphological variations, he must be prepared to make full use of the methods of comparative philology, and he must allow for the operation of special influences to which place-names are subjected. The difficulties of interpretation are increased not only by recognizable linguistic influences but also by what must be described as mistakes or inaccuracies in the written forms which now provide the only direct evidence of what the sounds once were. Leaving aside such considerations, however, let us for a moment examine how far the word unconscious might be applied in a metaphorical or transferred sense to historical, archaeological and linguistic material respectively.