In the Adur Valley of Sussex we have Wyckham and Southwick (Suthwic). The
salterns are mapped
The Roman connection is documented: Roman villa at Southwick juxta
Portslade (Portus Ladda), no archaeology at Wyckham juxta Stretham
(supposed location of a Roman road and first crossing point of the Adur).
Southwick was an important place way back then, with a port near to Gaul
(now Shoreham). Grain was harvested (and taxed) on the downs.
A reasonable explanation would be that Suthwic was the hinterland to the
port. Therefore, a market trading place would be plausible explanation. Or
a taxation area : Kingston is nearby. Salt could have been traded from both
locations which were near but not exactly the same place. Wyckham was on a
strategic position near the crossing point on land that was probably not
Suthwic was adjacent to the hamm. There is a strong indication that the
hamm was a pasture (but this is my surmise).
So the two local wics are adjacent to salt-making areas, also adjacent to
pastures, near a port and navigation areas, Roman roads, and also near
grain harvesting and the location of a Roman villa.
I favour a general trading place, not just salt, not just cattle (or
sheep), but also grain.
How do other wics fare?
[log in to unmask]
History of Shoreham, England
><< ( ( ( ' >
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:40:25 -0700, Bea Hopkinson
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>There have been many discussions on the subect of 'wic' and it is
>widely accept that it has the meaning of a place where something was
>made: salt making, i.e. Saltwic or Sealtwic, being one of them, etc.
>>kevin wooldridge wrote:
>>> 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
>>No - definitely not. ON 'vik' is rare in English place-names.