There is a potentially fruitful and symbiotic relationship between the study of field-names and archaeological investigation and historical data. This article starts by examining some examples of the use of field-names by archaeologists. Then, through a detailed analysis of one field-name, Stonyborow, attested in 1605 in Whitehill township, Tackley, Oxfordshire, this article considers the help that archaeoligical and historical records can be to those studying field-names; particularly so where, as is frequently the case, runs of name-attestations are very limited, sometimes to a single instance. First, the field-name Stonyborow is analysed from a linguistic point of view. Second, to help refine meaning and resolve remaining uncertainties, this linguistic analysis is combined with archaeological and historical data. It is shown how and why the 1605 name Stonyborow appears to contain the memory of built (Roman?) remains at the specific spot bearing the name. Along the way, it is hoped that the value of bringing together these wide-ranging strands of evidence is demonstrated, as well as the critical importance of integrating field-name evidence into the historic environment record for all to consult easily.