Could it be that the wic produced in one place was a distinguishing
feature or was of better quality so that place was known by the product
(think Sheffield Steel)?
If you have a large settlement by a river producing an abundance of
trout and that also produced good potter and one a couple of miles off
without that didn't have the trout stream but also produced pottery (for
instance - bad analogy here) would naming them both Potterywic be
beneficial? One called Potterywic and the other Troutplace may have
Apologies if someone else has said this - I'm getting confused by the
minutiae of argument.
Andy Horton wrote:
> 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.
> Andy Horton.