Author Topic: Kent Place Names  (Read 441 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smiffy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #35 on: Today at 05:24:57 PM »

Tenterden

Old English Tenet wara denn "Pasture of the men of Thanet"
Tentwardene – 1178
Tentwardenn' – 1240
Tentyrden' – 1255
Tenterden – 1610
These same people also owned tracts of marshland (brōcas) in this area, which were recorded as Tenet wara brocas in 968. Originally the property of the manor of Minster in Thanet, Tenterden was described in the 13th century as "Tenwardenne pertinet ad manerium de Menstre" (Tenterden belongs to the manor of Minster).


Gillingham

Old English Gyllinga hām "Settlement of Gylla's people"
Gyllinge ham – c.975
Gelingeham – 1086
Gillingeham – 1206
Gillingham – 1226


Ashford

From the Old English æsc scēat ford "Ash tree corner by a ford"
Essetesford – 1086
Aescedesford – c.1100
Esseteford – 1211
Essheteforde – 1262
Ashforde – 1596
Ashford – 1610


Offline Smiffy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2020, 11:56:08 PM »

This probably pertains to the work of John Speed, whose atlas "The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain" also contained individual county maps. These were prepared for engraving in about 1610, and first appeared in atlas form two years later. They became a standard reference and were still in use well into the 18th century.

Offline Dave Smith

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2020, 06:55:15 PM »
Smiffy. I find your list of place names very interesting. Could you please enlighten me on the significance of 1610, when they all seem to become the modern spelling?

Offline Smiffy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2020, 06:53:36 PM »

Back on-topic :)


Charing
 
Old English Ceorringas "Ceorra's people"
Cerringges – 799
Cheringes – 1086
Cherringes – 1175
Charringes – 1185
Cherring – 1203
Charing – 1610


Dover
 
From the British dubrā "The waters"
Dubris – c.425
Dofras – 696
on Doferum – c.1000
Douer – 1610
The name refers to the river Dour which has the same origin. The area around the river is described in c.1040 as Doferware broc "marshy land of the Dover people". Julius Caesar is reported to have sailed up the Dour in 55BC when it was still navigable for some distance inland.


Wateringbury

The affix "bury" in this case is not an indication of some kind of stronghold, but is from the Old English Wōðringas bǣr "swine pasture of the noisy ones".
æt Woðringaberan – 964
Otringeberge – 1086
Wotringaberia – c.1100
Watringbury – 1610


Offline stuartwaters

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 368
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2020, 03:40:13 PM »
This seems to have gone seriously off-topic. I'll have a bit of a sort out when I get home after work.
"I did not say the French would not come, I said they will not come by sea" - Admiral Sir John Jervis, 1st Earl St Vincent.

Offline Cosmo Smallpiece

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2020, 12:52:28 PM »
Yes, if you remove the preceding paragraph I posted, you could come to the conclusion you stated. However, the problem is that the paragraph IS there. Plus your paragraph says of 1st/2nd century forgery that it was relatively rare, not that it didn't exist. They have certainly found forgeries from then.

Offline MartinR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #29 on: May 26, 2020, 11:59:44 AM »
Sorry, I saw the following paragraph:
Quote
During the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, aside from large quantities of imitation copper asses of the emperor Claudius made immediately after the invasion of Britain (which are considered to have been struck for necessity rather than to deceive anyone), counterfeiting seems to have been relatively rare.  By the time of the Severan rulers and the 3rd Century, however, large quantities of coin moulds begin to appear, as well as an increase in counterfeit coins – mainly higher value silver denominations.
which seems to imply it was a post-conquest problem.
Coining usually consists of melting and refining the metal.  The metal is either cast into blanks or cut from sheet into the blanks.  The blank is placed between a pair of dies and struck which gives the fine, sharp detail a new coin should show.  When traditional castings are made in (for instance) brass, aluminium or iron, a riser is used to ensure the metal is under pressure; however to take a sharp impression of fine detail only certain metals work, for instance type metal. 

Offline Cosmo Smallpiece

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2020, 11:12:22 AM »
No, sorry. I got an instant ban on signing up yesterday!


From that link "Iron Age Britons had a habit of faking their own gold ‘staters’, and forging would continue into the Roman period."

I know nothing about coin making. From what I read, some coins (gold/lead) can be poured into moulds. Lighter metals just don't sit in the impressions properly and just form smartie-shaped blobs. These are therefore further struck with a die to flatten and pattern them.

I say this, but this purpose of those "coin pellet moulds" is disputed too. However, in places that are known/thought to be coin mints, they are found discarded in thousands.


I will say, I own a well-used special oven tray for baking dainty little cakes in. I've used it for lots of things but not yet baked a dainty little cake in it. And I'm certainly not Mr Kipling.

Offline MartinR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2020, 12:06:28 AM »
I thought you said you currently had a ban - why would this arise from an edit "years back"?
The original "coin moulds" (in passing, not quite the same as "coin pellet moulds") was changed to "coin dies" at 16:41 on 27 June 2012 by user Wetman with the edit summary "Coins are struck not cast ...".  Subsequently at 11:58 on 6 June 2014 Martin of Sheffield provided a citation for the coin moulds/dies: "Detsicas 1983 cited by Howell 2014 p 40".  Howell does indeed refer to "coin moulds" in a passing reference during an article on excavation in Furfield Quarry.  Now the question arises: were these moulds associated with a mint which a casual reader would assume, or are they "coin pellet moulds" for counterfeiters and jewelers?  It would be nice to get a date on these, since the article you cite below seems to imply this was a late Roman problem.

Offline Cosmo Smallpiece

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2020, 11:16:01 PM »
This was an edit years back. I was scrolling back looking for changes in the relevant paragraph.


edit


15:41 27 June 2012......I did say it was way back!

Offline MartinR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2020, 10:49:06 PM »
I'm confused.  WP's entry for the history of Rochester was last changed by a human at 08:16 on 6 December 2019.  That was merely a technical change, before that the previous change was at 23:17 on 2 March 2019.

Offline Cosmo Smallpiece

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2020, 09:56:38 PM »
Thanks, I had a try at your suggestion. It beat me and I am now on a four day ban! It looks more complex than I had supposed. I looked through the previous edits and saw that someone have previously changed the coin moulds to coin dies (evidently without checking the actual quoted source).


I've enjoyed looking into this subject. I kind of wish the discussion had continued longer.😀


Looking forward to more place names until Time Team are allowed out to dig again!

Offline MartinR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2020, 03:17:20 PM »
Good work.  Do you want to update Wiki with your results?

Offline Cosmo Smallpiece

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2020, 01:06:35 PM »
I’ve since been “digging” deeper into that archaeology report on Rochester. Like Chinese whispers, the findings have been embellished on their progress to Wikipedia. The dig was in the cellars of three buildings adjacent to the Natwest bank in the High Street. A few feet below the medieval cellars of two of them was the broad layer of Roman and Belgic finds. This layer was only partly present below the cellar of the third. Due to the presence of known old buildings, it seems that Rochester has been left fairly well preserved 10 to 12 feet down, even below the seemingly more modern buildings! There are many gardens and open spaces that appear to have never been built on. The notion that there is nothing to be found down there due to 2000 years of occupation does not appear true. In fact Canterbury is well built upon, yet they seem to have found their three-ditch ancient earthwork in several places.
The Belgic remains are also a problem. In Rochester the finding of the refuse layer of broken Belgic pottery is cited here as evidence of pre-Roman habitation. The problem is that the local people of Kent who would have moved to live beside the Roman road from elsewhere in Kent would also have been Belgic and would use Belgic pots. The presence of such a layer does not prove the settlement of Rochester was ancient Belgic, as the pottery was from the “early first century AD” and nothing older than that. It dated from around the period of the Roman occupation in 43AD! Furthermore Canterbury museum credits this pottery style continuing in use by the locals there until up to 100 years after the invasion date. You would need an older style of pottery present to prove a pre-Roman date. Harrison’s report does not say the pottery found was pre-Roman.
Coin dies were not found in Rochester. Found were ten fragments of broken clay coin pellet moulds. In these solid lumps of metal would have been heated to form circular blobs (like smarties!). Stamps that would have been struck to turn the blobs into imprinted flat coins were not found. It is these moulds that have caused this site to be elevated to a coin mint. This conclusion might have been reasonable if these coin moulds were an uncommon find. In fact they have been discovered in large quantities in Britain and Gaul. In UK sites that are now thought to have been coin mints, they have are discovered in numbers of 2000 to 6000 per site! Once unfit, they get discarded like the broken pottery they resemble. In the Rochester “mint” only ten fragments were found. Nothing else to suggest a mint was found. No furnace, crucibles, or coin stamps.
The whole suggestion of Rochester being a large fortified centre with a working coin mint, as a rival to Canterbury rests on the speculation that this was a large coin mint of the Cantii. This was not the verdict originally put forward by Chaplain and Harrison digging there. I would suggest that such a small finding of moulds suggests not a grand scale mint, but something much smaller like jewellery or a counterfeit enterprise. We now know coin forgery was common in Roman Britain.
https://www.baldwin.co.uk/news/newpound/
I’m hoping that someone on here will be able to shed more insight into either the Rochester or Canterbury digs.

Offline Cosmo Smallpiece

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Kent Place Names
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2020, 02:44:37 PM »

MartinR, thanks for that, but it was the following that I am not clear about....

As both the Romans and Normans realised, Rochester Castle hill is a strong point from which you can control the Medway,


I mean, don't see any evidence that the Romans used Castle Hill to control the Medway. Didn't they just eventually build a wall to surround their town?