British Marine Life Study Society wrote:
>
> I do not suppose anybody would like to summarise the scant evidence
> for Portchester and other sites?
>
> My guesses:
>
> PORTCHESTER
> Strategic coastal position
> Ardu = height with the topography and etymology is correct? at least a
> possibility?
> Evidence of Roman fortifications
Well, no. The relevant evidence is that Portsmouth Harbour was clearly
known to the Anglo-Saxons as "Portus" (whether mean meaning "port", or just
as a name.) "Height" is laughable - Portchester Castle is (at present)
about 3 inches above sea level! "Roman fortifications" is a red herring -
we are only considering sites with coastal forts.
> ADUR
> Strategic coastal position inferior to Portchester
> Ardu = height is possible by it is less likely than Portchester
> Evidence of Roman settlements, but the evidence of Roman
> fortifications is negligible and circumstantial (most would say zero)
> But most of all the name Portus Ladda (if this correct) makes the Adur
> unlikely
This was never a serious contender. (Michael Drayton seems to have been
responsible for the identification.) I think we should leave Portslade out
of this :-)
> HARDHAM
>
> Would someone else like to comment please?
No, this is a contender for the Ravenna Cosmography's Ardaoneon, assuming
that this is *not* the same place as Portus Adurni. If they *are* the same
place, then that is support for Portchester.
> ANY OTHER CONTENDORS?
Yes, Walton Castle, formerly near Felixstowe :-)
The choice is between Walton Castle and Portchester Castle, because those
are the two forts without names firmly attached to them.
John Briggs
|