A considerable number of placenames are documented before the Norman
Conquest. Charters, Chronicles and documents of other kinds all record
placenames and are sufficient for the chronology of placenames in the
pre-conquest period to be generally agreed and while 'ingas' placenames are
among the earlier, although not earliest placenames, 'tun' placenames are
among the later names and are usually associated with the division of larger
areas into smaller landholdings and quite often have a personal name at the
start. 'ham/hamm' has several meanings other than home so each 'ham' must be
looked at in context and frequently requires research to be sure of its
Equally the Domesday Book does not record the names of all places in
existence in 1086. Only those that are manors and there are many large
manors that were the head manor for a number of other settlements known to
be in existence at this time from documents or archaeology. A specific
example I am aware of is the manor of Sonning in Berkshire it is a huge
manor with 46 ploughs and includes many of the local villages, Arborfield,
Twyford, Ruscombe, to name but a few
----- 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