Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T19:27:38.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On some Romano-British Place-Names

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Extract

For over fifty years the standard source for the form and meaning of ancient Celtic names has been Holder's Altceltischer Sprachschatz. As usual with such encyclopaedic works, the result has been to endow it in the eyes of non-specialists with an authority sometimes greater than it deserves, fine piece of scholarship though it was in its day; for there is a good deal in Holder which Celticists now know to be mistaken. He made much use of the opinions of Stokes, Rhys, and Arbois de Jubainville; and these are by now often out of date. It is important that historians should realize this. The study of British place-names has made remarkable progress of late years, but the Celtic side of it has not kept pace with the rest; for place-name scholars very rarely have any first-hand knowledge of Celtic historical grammar. Hence even in the best recent works on our place-names the Celtic etymologies are sometimes unsound, because the authors put too much reliance in obsolete or untrustworthy authorities. The present article is a short list of addenda and corrigenda to Holder and other such works, in respect of a few Romano-British names whose Celtic etymologies seem particularly to need revision. The forms taken as the starting points are those given in the Ordnance Survey Map of Roman Britain; or, failing that, in Holder. References to Ptolemy are from C. Müller's edition, Paris, 1883; to the Antonine Itinerary from Otto Cuntz's, Leipzig, 1929 (also to K. Miller, Itineraria Romana, Stuttgart, 1916); to the Peutinger map from Miller's edition ibid.; to the Notitia Dignitatum from O. Seeck's, Berlin, 1876; and to Ravennas from J. Schnetz's, Leipzig, 1930.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Kenneth Jackson 1948. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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 cf. Loth, , Revue Celtique XLII, 353Google Scholar. Whether this is the same as the Old Irish céte ‘path’ and céte ‘flat hill’ seems uncertain. If either of these is related to Welsh pant ‘valley’, as supposed by Vendryes, , Zeitschr. f. Celt. Phil. IX, 296Google Scholar, and (for ‘path’) by Pokorny, Zur Urgeschichte der Kelten und Illyrier, 153, they cannot belong to cant ‘host’ or Cantium. Pokorny, op. cit., 149, connects Cantium with cant ‘border’ and céte ‘flat hill’, which he identifies with céte ‘assembly’; but he appears not to know cant ‘host’, which is much more obviously related to céte ‘assembly’. Förster, Der Flussname Themse, 846, quotes Pokorny as proposing die Krumme for *Cantia as a river-name, rejecting die Weisse.

2 But this word is perhaps rather *caunos, cf. now Thurneysen, Grammar of Old Irish, 140.

3 Thurneysen, Grammar of Old Irish 174, appears to take the -nt- as a diminutive suffix (‘The Kid-Fighters’?); but this is much less probable.

4 Thurneysen's suggestion, Zeitschr. f. Celt. Phil. XX, 135, n. 1, that Regni is the source of the Nennian name for Thanet (Roihin, Ruimh, etc.) is improbable both phonetically and geographically. Roihin, Ruimh, etc., has been satisfactorily explained by Förster, o.c., 853.