Being “productive” with place-names

I’d not even finished writing the piece that was the subject of my previous post when I began to formulate a new sidelight analysis to append to it. The basis of this was what I perceived to be a positive correlation between certain published “productive sites” and places whose names derive from Old English middel-tūn (or “Grimston hybrid”-like forms of this compound). When I looked at the evidence for middle Anglo-Saxon artefacts from the environs of the two extant Surrey place-names of this formation, I found that both exhibited a remarkable – and I would go so far as to contend non-coincidental – replication of the proposed correspondence. Does every “middle tūn” constitute a “productive place-name”? Probably not, however, particularly in eastern England, there does seem to be good grounds for investigating the early medieval archaeological profiles of the sites to which such an appellation is or was attached.

Now I’ve pretty much summarised the entire update, why not click here to take a look at the unabridged version and make my staying up past 2am to finish writing it worthwhile…

Advertisements

About Robert J S Briggs

Back to being a part-time early medievalist; Surrey born, London based, been known to travel
This entry was posted in Anglo-Saxon, Archaeology, Chertsey, Coins, Dorking, Landscape, Lincolnshire, Place-Names, Portable Antiquities Scheme, Surrey, Trade and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Being “productive” with place-names

  1. Pingback: LINKING WITH SURREY MEDIEVAL. | Pater Familias

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s