Talk:History of Brighton

Brighton Top‑importance

	East Sussex portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reference to "Beorthelm's-tun" - Can't find it

I've just been looking through the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at Project Gutenberg and I can't find the reference for "Beorthelm's-tun". Does any one know where it mentioned specfically? I'm trying to add the reference. Thanks. --Seaweed 19:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with that particular reference, but I'm sure I've seen the name used elsewhere in the past, which doesn't help much but is basically a vote for not nuking the point just yet. The usual catch-all source is the excellent Encyclopædia of Brighton ; I'll have a look at mine as soon as I get a chance and see if it's mentioned in there. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already looked Kieran T and Carder does not mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. He just says that "Beorthelm" is the "accepted etymology". But he gives so many references I don't know which one relates to this point. --Seaweed 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through "Brighton" by Underwood (1978)earlier and he has a detailed section on Brighton and when he mentions the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle he only mentions the broad history of Sussex, but nothing about "Beorthelm". The only reference is that "Beorthlem" comes from a book called "Sussex Place Names" which I can't locate. The only proper evidence I can find at the moment is from this website [1]. But anyway, that's not the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Lots of research into such a small point, but as it goes right to the beginning of the Brighton story and I suppose we need to make sure Wikipedia is correct. So... in summary, I don't think the reference to "Beorthelm's tun" being mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is right. I still think the first written, documentary evidence of Brighton is in the Domesday Book. --Seaweed 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at various Brighton history books and I've yet to see one mention of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as being the first mention of the Brighton. So I've removed that reference now, and added an etymology reference I found. --Seaweed 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article stops at the end of the Roman era, and starts again with the Norman Conquest. I know that Anglo-Saxon sources are meagre, but, apart from the etymological evidence, and the occasional burial, is there any other evidence of a settlement in Brighton from this time? It would be good to try to shed some light on this apparently quiet part of Brighton's History.--Dumbo1 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also have been looking for the legendary mention of Beorthelms'tun in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. I suspect that it is mentioned not in the main chronicles, but instead in one of the surviving Anglo-Saxon Charters. These are not as easily accessible to the public as the much published chronicles. If anyone has time to look this up, it would improve the article, and clear up the many conflicting ideas around about the first mention of Beorthelm's tun. --Dumbo1 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dumbo, I think you are right that the narrative is interupted in way which is probably misleading. The etymological evidence, along with the clear evidence that a Saxon village existed in the Domesday Book, could merit some sort of mention of the likelihood of a farming and fishing settlement throughout the 6th-10th centuries. But I also agree with you that anyone who knows of archaeological or documentary evidence should let us know!! Dan

Citations needed

I've been adding quite a few "citation needed" references to this article. I think it's quite important that specfic historical details have some proper references to back them up. I'm familiar with quite a lot of them, but I don't have all the relevant books to hand. I'm planning to add the correct references when I can, but if anyone wants to beat me to it then you're more than welcome. :) If you're not familiar with adding references I've added a few already, so hopefully you might be able to follow the syntax. You might want to read the Manual of Style section on citations as well. --Seaweed 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right and I hope you can put better ones than a couple I've just added along the lines of 'go visit the museum'! Dan

The more references the better. I think the Wikpedia policy of "Verifiability" is quite important. By the way, I know it's not compulsary but you might find it easier if you create a Wikipedia username. Then you'll be able to track your edits and put a "watch" on any pages that you might want to follow. Also, other Wikipedians can leave messages on your userpage. Just a suggestion! :) --Seaweed 21:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are getting better all the time — I'm picturing you beavering away improving the references as this evening goes on. Good job, Dan :)

However, one of them throws up a question: why is the mention of Palmeria Square in this article? Last time I lived on Brunswick Terrace (immediately to the east of there), it was Hove by that point on the seafront... ;) Seriously, I can see a case for it being part of the overall picture of Brighton history, but it really ought to be in the Hove page. Anybody mind if it moves? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman occupation

I'm troubled by the Roman occupation section, in particular the second paragraph. I can't find any documentary evidence of a Roman road through Hove and Brighton. I've got the "Historical Atlas of Sussex" (1999) in front of me showing the various Roman roads, villas and artefacts found in Sussex. The road to Hassocks isn't marked as going over the Downs. Does anyone have any evidence on a possible Roman road through Hove and Brighton? --Seaweed 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in some reference to info from the roman-britain web-site. I've also looked for the roman road through to Brighton from Hassocks, and the road from Brighton to Hove. On the large scale maps, these are not shown. However on the 1:25000 normal OS map, the road is shown from London through Hassocks and continuing, however this peters out about 2 miles south of Hassocks. Other mentions are made of a small section of road near the preston park villa, and another of a small section in hove. These were reported in the late victorian age, when Brighton and Hove were being developed. All this stuff will be first recorded in the annals of the Sussex Archaeological Society (founded 1846) or Brighton and Hove Archaeological society (founded 1906), however to go back to primary source could take me a while so please have a bit of patience. --Dumbo1 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton-Norton

In the paleolithic paragraph, the mention of the "Brighton-Norton lower Raised beach" doesn't explain what the Norton in "Brighton-Norton" refers to. I found it stood out awkwardly when reading it. Can somebody who knows what it is please expand on that? If it's just a direct quote from the referenced article, I'd say it should just be removed, on the basis that too much information with no obvious instructional value can be confusing and off-putting. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Kieran. I think that the paragraph originally came from the assumption that most readers won't know what a raised beach is and merely referenced the strata - the name being a secondary issue. If no-one objects I think a reversion to that approach is to be preferred. Dan

p.s. the 'Norton' (which I did not add) refers to the small farm in West Sussex where the strata has been mapped to. Indeed, going by your stated ruthless policy of removing anything specifically NON-Brighton, a case could be made for the removal of 'Norton' on that basis alone!! :)

Hehe, I presume you mean my "ruthless policy"? ;) It's simply because we have three articles: Brighton, Hove, and Brighton and Hove, and... well, since they've been broken down like that, and all mention each other, it seems redundant to duplicate information. Wikipedia could get very cluttered if that happened with every overlapping topic. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brighton Norton Raised beach is a raised (15m) palaeolithic beach which extends from Black Rock in the east to Norton in West Sussex. These raised beach deposits are known as Coombe Rock (formerly the Elephant Beds). Most of the Coombe Rock outcrops are now covered by the Brighton and Hove conurbation, especially along Marine Parade. Interestingly at Black Rock, there is a palaeocliff, clearly shown in section. Its just behind Asda car-park, and it is really quite clear once you get your eye in. --Dumbo1 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Brighton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Brighton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]