<<I must disagree on both points, Matt. Dinton is so often Danington, whicth the long tradition of the Danish battle both there and at Bledlow (with some AS Chronicle back up, which I haven't the leisure to check now, but have seen). The interesting story of the plant mutation because of the presence of so much blood in the earth at one spot is backed up by the presence of these plants, to which a regular pilgrimage used to be made, in simpler times, and the story undoubtedly passed down in this way.>> But Eve, the fact of a battle having been fought with the Danes is not evidence for Danes having settled on its site. In the early days they were extremely mobile and fought battles in every part of the country, including areas of southern and southwestern England which were never settled by them. And I don't think it's right that Dinton has often been spelled Danington, at least not in early records, which is what counts. Place-names of Buckinghamshire gives 19 early spellings of the name from 32 different sources (from 1086 to the second half of the 16th century). Only one of them begins 'Dan-', and that is the one in Domesday Book (Danitone), a notoriously unreliable source for early forms of names (because the Norman scribes found Anglo-Saxon names very difficult). All the other 31 sources began Dun- or Don-, or occasionally Den- or Din/Dyn-. So I don't think there's really any justification for rejecting the explanations given by Ekwall and the authors of Place-names of Buckinghamshire. <<And Thorp is definitely the Danish element for hamlet.>> But the problem is that thorp is also definitely an Anglo-Saxon word with the same meaning, and a Middle English word with the same meaning. So the place-name Eythrope could have been formed in any of these languages, and we must look for pointers as to which. All the clues point towards a non-Danish origin. I listed them in my previous posting, so I won't repeat them now, but will just say that these are not my personal theories - I am merely repeating the views of all the place-name expert, based on those clues. As well as the two authorities I mentioned before, see also Kenneth Cameron's 'English Place-names', p 78 (in the 1961 edition, or p 80 in the 1996 edition), which mentions Eythrope specifically. with best wishes, Matt

Just to throw another spanner into the works here, we have, locally, a hill called Dan Bank. This looks suspiciously like a Danish connection but the hill was in fact named after a family that held the farm there whose surname was Dan. Now you could suggest that the original family was a Danish one but the connection gets a little remote the further you go back, don't you think? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tompkins, M.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:24 AM Subject: RE: [OEL] Thorps and Throps > <<I must disagree on both points, Matt. Dinton is so often Danington, > whicth the long tradition of the Danish battle both there and at Bledlow (with some AS Chronicle back up, which I haven't the leisure to check now, but have seen). The interesting story of the plant mutation because of the presence of so much blood in the earth at one spot is backed up by the presence of these plants, to which a regular pilgrimage used to be made, in simpler times, and the story undoubtedly passed down in this way.>> > > > But Eve, the fact of a battle having been fought with the Danes is not evidence for Danes having settled on its site. In the early days they were extremely mobile and fought battles in every part of the country, including areas of southern and southwestern England which were never settled by them. > > And I don't think it's right that Dinton has often been spelled Danington, at least not in early records, which is what counts. Place-names of Buckinghamshire gives 19 early spellings of the name from 32 different sources (from 1086 to the second half of the 16th century). Only one of them begins 'Dan-', and that is the one in Domesday Book (Danitone), a notoriously unreliable source for early forms of names (because the Norman scribes found Anglo-Saxon names very difficult). All the other 31 sources began Dun- or Don-, or occasionally Den- or Din/Dyn-. > > So I don't think there's really any justification for rejecting the explanations given by Ekwall and the authors of Place-names of Buckinghamshire. > > > <<And Thorp is definitely the Danish element for hamlet.>> > > > But the problem is that thorp is also definitely an Anglo-Saxon word with the same meaning, and a Middle English word with the same meaning. So the place-name Eythrope could have been formed in any of these languages, and we must look for pointers as to which. > > All the clues point towards a non-Danish origin. I listed them in my previous posting, so I won't repeat them now, but will just say that these are not my personal theories - I am merely repeating the views of all the place-name expert, based on those clues. As well as the two authorities I mentioned before, see also Kenneth Cameron's 'English Place-names', p 78 (in the 1961 edition, or p 80 in the 1996 edition), which mentions Eythrope specifically. > > with best wishes, > > Matt > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >