I was thinking primarily with Hamwic Aldwych Ipswich etc which we are led to
believe were founded as trading areas by the Saxons. Southampton was if the
Archaeological evidence is to be accepted without question created as a
trading post with only certain members of the society allowed to enter.
I cannot off the top of my head think of anywhere in France where Wick or
its variants exist but then they weren't invaded/ subjugated like we Britons
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Horton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'
We do not see many of the place names before the arrival of the Norman
I think the Saxon enclaves would be searate -ing place names, with -ton
and -hamm (-ham ?) added as they got bigger.
It is still arguable. You have to make up your own mind on the balance of
Question: does wic occur in France? Combe is arguably pre-Saxon (OE). My
knowledge falls down on a few place names. I've forgotten.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:48:32 +0100, Rob <[log in to unmask]>
>I fail to see how you can say that wic and Stret were Romanised Germanic
>words. If they were Romanised words why do we not see them prior to the
>influx of the Saxon tribes?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Horton" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'
>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
>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
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