by Geoffrey Gardiner, Knutsford Photographic Society
These thoughts were prompted by an e-mail on this subject sent to the Knutsford Photo. Soc. by two of Knutsford's local cabbies.
I
must say I have great sympathy with the views of our correspondents concerning
the origin of the name Knutsford, and whether there was a ford of any
importance. As they say in their e-mail it is all too easy to go around the
boggy area which would have extended from the bottom of Croft Lane right through
to Tatton Mere.
There
are linguistic problems too. Knut is a common Scandinavian name, and to
associate it with the Danish/English King of that name is in my opinion fanciful
in the extreme. If Knutsford was in the Danelaw, and I understand it was, there
could have been any number of Knuts after whom to name the ford, if there was
one!
But
"ford" is old English, not Norse. The modern Norwegian for a ford is
"vadested" - the place where one fords. The Norse for "road"
is "gate", pronounced as two syllables. Hence "Chestergate"
in Macclesfield.
The
Vikings who invaded Britain tended to be the young men, it is said, and they
married the local girls, and it was the language of the females which was passed
on to the next generation, not Norse, except that for some reason, not fully
understood, Norse place names were often preserved. The excellent Manx Museum in
Douglas Isle of Man makes this point. "Knutsford" being a combination
of Norse and English does not however make sense. "Neatsford" does
make sense, as both parts of the name are Old English. A neat was a cow or steer
of the genus "bos" according to my etymological dictionary.
Brythonic
Celtic, which was probably spoken in pre-Roman times in Cheshire by the resident
tribe, the Corieltauvi, uses "ffordd", pronounced "forth"
for road. So that is another possible derivation.
I
still do not know who Molly Potts was, despite living here 21 years.
Croft
Lane is a bit of a mystery. It is obviously very ancient as it is a sunken road,
but it seems unlikely to have been the original route of the main road. Perhaps
people used it to get to the mere, "Sanctuary Moor", to dig peat,
assuming there was any.
I
think all ideas about population movements and the spread of languages in Europe
have to be very tentative. The "history" we are taught is just a
collection of armchair assumptions. DNA analysis has shown that populations were
much more stable than once thought. Conquest did not of necessity involve the
removal of whole populations, as the older theory proposes, but the imposition
of the conquerors as a new ruling class, and the resultant language is commonly
that of the females of the older population, not the other way around as some
theories require. Genetic archaeology should solve some mysteries, but we must
be prepared to abandon some ancient theories. Personally I even have a few
doubts as to whether the language of the "Kelts" referred to in
ancient Greek literature was what we now call "Celtic".
There
is no reference at all in classical literature to anyone called
"Celts" ever being resident in Britain, and the areas of Europe where
the Celts referred to in the classical literature are assumed to have lived do
not now speak any language related to the Brythonic of Wales and Cornwall, or
the Gaelic of Scotland or Ireland. It is even suggested that Breton, a Brythonic
dialect, arrived in Brittany from Cornwall and is not the old language of the
Gauls described by Julius Caesar.
What
we now call "Celtic" languages are way out on a limb of the tree of
Indo-European languages, and their nearest related language is said to be
Tokharian, which was spoken in Chinese Turkestan. The areas where Celtic
cultures are supposed to have flourished now speak other, more closely related,
Indo-European languages. What we do know is that the Celts who sacked Rome and
invaded Greece were very warlike, very good metal workers, and very artistic,
but whether they really had close relatives in Britain is not clearly proved to
my satisfaction.
Were
Gaelic and Welsh (dialects of the same earlier language) the languages of the
Megalithic civilisation whose structures are such a dominant part of the British
scene and the whole of what archaeologists call the Atlantic Facade? Their
numbers seemed to decline during the Bronze Age, but their genes still survive
in the British population. They were clearly very, very skilful. No doubt they
had to be to survive. Recent research at Applecross in Wester Ross indicates
that 8,000 years ago the people living there were capable of deep sea fishing.
That seems to me to necessitate skills which make pyramid building look like a
doddle. They must have been very innovative, and one wonders whether the harsh
necessities of life in the Highlands and Islands produced a population of
super-innovators whose abilities were transmitted to future generations. It
would explain why such a huge proportion of the great innovations of
civilisation were originated by Scots.
There
have been some amazing discoveries recently. Did you know that a copper mine,
worked from 1860 BC, has very recently been uncovered on the Great Orme? It was
the biggest in the Bronze Age world. Until its discovery it was assumed that
Britain was an importer of metals. Now it seems it was the other way around. The
mine produced enough copper to make between five and ten million bronze axes.
To
sum up: everything is speculation; nothing is proved.
Geoffrey Gardiner
May 2000
Return tothe Knutsford Photographic Society