The question was how do your local wics fare?
Suthwic (Southwick) Sussex, archaeological continuous occupation through
Roman times, before and after
Nearby, Highdown, the same continuous occupation through Roman times,
before and after
Why was one a wic and another not?
An unprovable speculative possibility: One area Suthwic was predominately
Romano-Brit in tribal make-up and retained its Latin component to its name
whereas the other area was under political control of the Saxons.
Archaeological evidence will not reveal the answer. Back in Ektall's time
Roman coins could have been very usual finds.
There was a topographical difference though. Suthwic juxta Portus Ladda was
on a haven, Wychkham was next to a navigable River Adur (not a
Welsh/Cornish name origin), whereas Highdown, despite being near the coast
was not directly navigable.
Anyrate, place name is study is a bit speculative. It is always the most
believable explanation. -ora name components is one example.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:11:08 +0100, kevin wooldridge <[log in to unmask]>
>In 5th to 9th century Britain surely every settlement was by definition 'a
place where something was made' be it metalwork, ceramic, textile, bone
tools, coinage, straw hats, fishing nets, fish hooks, salt, milk, cheese,
bread, illuminated manuscripts, weapons, buckets, houses, pointed sticks,
ice skates, amber jewellry, roof tiles, tin trays, loom weights, mirrors,
glassware etc etc. We are discussing an iron age (note lower case)
agricultural/semi-industrial society. But not every 5th to 9th century
placename is a -wich, -vic or -wick.
> I am personally quite happy to accept that -wich, -vic, and -wick place
names could have a multiplicity of origins, but it is probably only
archaeology (at the end of the day), that will demonstrate whether such
settlements were newly founded in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th centuries,
refounded on settlements of Roman origin or were continuously occupied over
a longer period of time, and what 'activity', may or may not have taken
place in that settlement at different times.
> 'Ekwall' is a fine book, but it is at the end of the day largely
speculative, based upon one persons interpretation of the origins of place
names during a period when precise contemporary documentary evidence of
such origins is scarce. Like many history/archaeology books written over 60
years ago, it needs to be assessed in the context of subsequent research.
>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.
> All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and
ease of use." - PC Magazine