3 ms·

They appear to have been named after the modern villages currently on or near their locations

• Someone 6y ago
  The existence of the villages was known; their location wasn’t. The modern villages were named after the medieval ones, but aren’t necessarily in the same location. This research combined sources to find locations with above-average levels of bricks, pottery, and animal bones to locate likely locations of the villages (thought to be impossible thus far as the sea has dispersed all remains and ship wrecks add noise), and combined that with literature search to put names on each of them.
  • therein 6y ago
    > The existence of the villages was known; their location wasn’t. The modern villages were named after the medieval ones, but aren’t necessarily in the same location. How does that happen, though? What had happened that they had no records of but they have records of the names of the villages it rendered inaccessible?
    • Arnt 6y ago
      If you have records that <name> of <village> married <name> of <other village> on <date>, the record is of a marriage, but you can infer the existence of two villages, a church, and an indication that the date was considered suitable for a wedding in that area at that time.
    • Someone 6y ago
      All it takes is a diary of somebody making a voyage through these villages, and that surviving for centuries for them to be ‘known’ without, necessarily, having a good idea about where they were located (could be something like “two days east of x”, where the precise location of x isn’t known, ‘east’ is anything from north-east to south-east, and travel speed has to be guessed) Alternatively, a tax record may just list names of villages. All you would know then is that they fell under a certain jurisdiction, whose borders may not have been clear even then.