But couldn't 'wic' also come from the Scandinavian denoting 'a settlement at the end of a long inlet' (hence the later wic-ings or vikings). Surely, a settlement at the end of a long inlet perfectly describes Hamwic, Londonwic, Ipswich, Norwich
Catherine Petts <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think this is the wrong way round 'wic' is the germanic formation from
the latin word 'vicus', and 'stret' is derived from 'stratus', paved street
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'
> 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"
> 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
> 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
> Andy Horton.
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:28:42 +0100, Rob
>>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"
>>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
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.