This is an arguable point. What does the balance of evidence indicate?
The linguists have always (perhaps not all of them) have argued for a mass
Saxon immigigration and genocide, which I never believed for a minute.
Therefore, they argued that the Saxons brought their Latinised names over
from Germany like wic, stret etc. Despite the Roman archaeological
But I never believed in the genocide on a mass scale*. A few examples, of
course, e.g. Anderitum became Pevensey (Balkans style). (* Even with modern
weapons it does not work very well.)
My point is that not only can we reassess the Saxon immigration (if you
needed to), but we can do the same with the Romans before them ! Coin
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:28:42 +0100, Rob <[log in to unmask]>
>I owuld have thought that Southwick and Wykham names were Saxon. Wyck or
>its variants in my understanding refer to a Saxon trading place as in
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Horton" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'
>Following on from this with the Roman invasion of Britain. The Romans
>probably did the same thing before AD 43.
>They had their enclaves of Romanised immigrants especially in Sussex. They
>never needed to invade Sussex because they were already there!
>For the linguists, why are there no Celtic (unless you count Lewes?) place
>names in Sussex. Because the Romans got rid of most of them and then the
>Saxons got rid of the rest. There are still part Roman place names.
>Portslade, Stretham, Southwick, Wyckham, plus.
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 18/07/2006