Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:37:39.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Survival of Romano-British Place-names in Southern Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2015

A.H.A. Hogg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and News
Information
Antiquity , Volume 38 , Issue 152 , December 1964 , pp. 296 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] E.g. for river-names, Jackson, K. Language and History in Early Britain (Edinburgh, 1953), map p. 220.Google Scholar

[2] E.g. Seiont (Segontium, Caernarvon); Der-went (Derventio, Littlechester).

[3] Conveniently summarized in the text which accompanies the O.S. Map of Roman Britain (Chessington, 1956).

[4] Edited with comments by Richmond, I.A. Crawford, O.G.S. and Williams, I. Archaeologia, xeni, 1949, I–50.Google Scholar The identifications made here and in the O.S. Map have been accepted uncritically, since the few which are open to dispute do not affect the general argument. The writer is indebted for valuable comments to Mr A. L. F. Rivet.

[5] Arch., xeni, 29.

[6] The name survived until the time of Bede. Arch., xcm, 43, under Pampocalia.

[7] Unless some faint echo of the name survives in Oakengates.

[8] Jackson, K. Journ. Roman Studies, 38, 1948, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[9] See Arch. Journ., cxix, 1962, 130-1 and on the name Arch., xcIII, 46, under Tamese. It was the presence of Dorchester which suggested that this zone should be regarded as a crescent rather than as two separate ovals.

[10] Anderita seems to have vanished as a settlement-name after its destruction (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a., 491) though it survived as a district-name.

[11] Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain, 225, is very relevant and makes many of the points suggested here, but does not consider the possible significance of known survivals as distinct from other Celtic names.Google Scholar

[12] Ibid., 108–12.