Just in case I have been misunderstood or that my writing was not as clear
as it should be:
I did imply that the wic settlements often, but not always, had continual
settlement from Celtic through to Saxon times. There is nothing really
special about this. It happens with places without the wic component. It
might not happen quite so often % wise with -ingas place name endings.
The other point, I made was that if England could support a larger
population than was present under Roman occupation, you would not actually
need all that many immigrants. They would breed more quickly and their
population would quickly excalate.
I do not think there was deliberate apartheid policy. It seems extremely
unlikely with the disparate tribes of immigrants. I would say the opposite
was more likely.
Although some places have a long history of change, many of the place names
were recorded only by the Normans in a relatively short perod of time. Most
first known records of places are 1086 with some the previous centry before
in England and not many (according to AD Mills) dating back much longer
than that: e.g. Londonium, Mamucio, Eboracum, Coloniae Glev (Gloucester)
and others not written down. It seems that the important places were more
likely to retain their Celtic components in the place names.
I wonder if it is plausible to do it the other way around, to suggest that
places with a Celtic or Roman component to their name was either important
or Roman influence that was considerable (or the Saxon influence
This does not include the wealh place names as I think this is what Saxons
called the Welsh and it suggests that the Saxon influence was dominant in
the place names list.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:55:52 +0100, Catherine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Placename formation took place over a very long period and it is clear just
>by looking at placenames in one's immediate locality that the reasons for
>placename formation are many and various.
>As far as I know there is no connection between 'wic' placenames and
>or not there has been continuous occupation since prehistoric times. but
>we need to be very clear what continuous occupation means , is it of a
>specific site or a specific area. because you have only to look at any
>modern village to see even when it is a relatively cohesive whole, various
>parts of it can acquire a separate name as a means of location, 'Somewhere
>Churchend', or 'Somewhere Winterbourne'. Even more so when the new part is
>a recent addition to an existing settlement. If village centres shift or
>decay the subsidiary name becomes the centre of the settlement and its
>becomes the name of the settlement. hamlets can hav completely separate
>names, evenwhen they are only hundreds of yards from the main settlement
>Similarly there is no reason to think, 'wic' or not, that a place with an
>Anglo-Saxon name was new-founded by the Saxons. Roman Calleva Atebatum
>becunes Saxon Silchester,
>One of the difficulties I have with the 'separate development' theory is
>that in the Roman period, when as well as having overall Roman governance,
>and in areas, Roman military occupation, most of the higher echelons of the
>native population were Romanised, when you look at placenames, most
>essentially celtic. The Romans romanised the celtic names of large towns
>the celtic element remained. Looking at the Norman Conquest the same is
>apparent. Their effect of placenames is even less. Most of the placenames
>England are essentially Anglo-Saxon. However the Anglo-Saxons reach these
>shores and we see a complete renaming of the country side and while I can
>understand that the newer owner of an estate may want to call it 'My town'
>and even call another area 'My water meadows' What I do not understand why
>he then goes round renaming every minute place in his estate. If the serfs
>call their hamlet 'Our hovel' in their own language, he might Saxonise it
>but not transalate or change.This to me suggests either the old idea of
>large numbers of Anglo-Saxons coming in to colonise an empty land or a far
>closer mixing of AS and the existing population, which would preclude
>From: "Andy Horton" 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.