Talk:Frostenden

Frostenden Mound
I have seen your recent edits to the page. I hope the following does not come across as overly critical, it is naturally dejecting to see the product of several hours of research, a site visit, and a visit to Suffolk Archives largely removed - especially given that I was planning on going back to Suffolk Archives to view newspaper articles on the 1951 dig, and have a request from a senior lecturer at the local university to meet to discuss the site.

That said, I wondered if you could think on the following questions:
 * Why have you removed so much detail from the piece? It may not be the world's most significant archaeological site, but I thought I might as well put in as much detail as well.
 * Why do you object to the article by Ben Raffield? It is a recent article in a peer reviewed journal from someone with a Ph.D. on the topic. It is also essential to the mound's significance and the only article I have seen that attempts to catalogue Viking era fortifications. The term 'Viking' is used clearly within its historical meaning - raiders from Scandinavia. I do not understand why it would not be a WP:RS.
 * I didn't add this, but why have you removed the port - salt house connection? It is discussed in multiple peer reviewed sources.
 * Not a question but the attribution of "not impossible but very difficult to prove" to Woodard is completely wrong.

Best wishes ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I might be able to get back to this later or over the next couple of days, but the main problem is that it's way too detailed. You're at the level of needing to split it off into its own article. It also doesn't fit into the structure very well - but that can be worked on. It'd probably be better if you looked over both versions and tried to incorporate it in a way that reaches a compromise - there are certainlty things that can be removed - the river dredging, for example. We can provide the sources and allow people to reach those. When you do that can you a) check the Woodward attribution - it's exactly the same as in your version; b) do something about "Viking" - viking era if necessary; c) sort the source out; d) correct the spelling of Ordnance please!
 * Fwiw I'm not sure that Raffield says what you suggest he does and I don't think - skimming it - that there's any in-depth discussion of the Frostenden site. His survey doesn't preclude other sites in Suffolk, just that this is the only one he came across with his methodology. We can find a better wording here - "the only one identified in Suffolk in a XXXX academic article/survey"?
 * If by the link between the port and salt, you mean the suggestion that it was used for salting fish, then I don't think there's a specific, established link n this case is there? And I think we had the river running behind the church, which is a bit of a stretch as it goes nowhere near it. Have a look and see where you can get to on this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply.
 * (a) Quite right, mistake in my original.
 * (b) I have gone for "Viking era Danish" - I drew heavily on Raffield for the wording as it was the most recent scholarly work I could find on the site.
 * (c) Corrected
 * (d) I think I have fixed this.
 * It is hard to prove that there aren't any other suspected sites in Suffolk, though it seems that if there was serious consideration given to a site by historians or archaeologists it would appear in the HER or the NMR.
 * As regards length, I would not consider this overly long or detailed - though perhaps given the rest of the article is a little longer than a stub it does stand out. I did consider creating an article on this, but I am not sure that it is sufficiently notable for this.
 * Viking is defined Oxford University Press's World Encyclopaedia as Scandinavian seaborne marauders, traders and settlers, who spread throughout much of Europe and the North Atlantic region in the 9th to 11th centuries and by Collin's English Dictionary as people who sailed from Scandinavia and attacked villages in most parts of north-western Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries. The use of the term here, as I said, is based on Raffield's wording. It is also understandable to the general public. Please could you explain to me why its use here is worrying you.
 * Best wishes ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Viking implies something to people that Danish raider or invader or settler, for example, doesn't. It feels too broad - and in general terms I think people are more likely to conflate it with bearded men with horned helmets raping and pillaging. Which might not quite be what we're looking for here. Viking-era might work (I've not looked at the article yet, but will do at some point over the next day or so - too much work this afternoon...), but I think I prefer Danish in general terms - that's what the sources say isn't it?
 * Oh, would sea port work better as a sub-heading btw? Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. 'Danish' is used by the sources, I just think that 'Viking' would make the time period clearer. I think I will leave this decision up to you.
 * On the subject of the sea port, I have thought about how to express this and I am still not sure. There are some people who draw a connection between the mound and the sea port which seems logical to me but other people who argue that they are unconnected. I will leave this decision to you as well.
 * As regards the dredging, I will admit that at present it is something of a note to a reader that it may have turned up something interesting. The HER records it as finding pottery, bones, and oyster shells but without looking at the letter they hold, I would not want to assert that these are connected to the mound. You can delete it if you like.
 * Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Thanks for giving this section a second pair of eyes. While I may disagree with you over appropriate length, I certainly appreciate the corrections you have suggested.
 * I recently got given a copy of an article by Cooper in the EADT which may change your opinion on the salt house/herring discussion. He writes (it may be noted that Saltworks on the Coast were almost sure indications of [the] Fishing trade [-] the salt being used for curing the fish).
 * I have also had a discussion with the historian at UoS, and he seemed to regard Raffield as a world leading expert on Danish fortifications and camps, though said that his view in the article that Viking camps didn't have a particular style is somewhat out of date and not applicable to camps built by the same group of Vikings.
 * He also said a lot of other interesting stuff which obviously can't be included in the article but will hopefully make its way into a publication that could be included in the future.
 * Best wishes and have a good day, ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Herring
As the discussion above naturally focusses mainly on the mound, which I have taken to calling 'Frostenden Mound', it may be hard to disentangle the marginally related point of the port - herring - salt house connection. As such I have provided bellow the relevant sources from which I hope future editors will find it easier to make a decision on whether this connection is a reasonable inference.


 * East Anglia's history : Studies in honour of Norman Scarfe pg. 8 A dock or quay at Frostenden would have been convenient for fishing craft. Pg 9. Thus there was an umbilical relationship between catching herring and producing salt. ... Whence came the salt? Here one must notice the remarkable concentration of salinae, salt-works, in extreme south-east Norfolk.


 * The Haskins Society Journal: Studies in Medieval History. Volume 21 (citing the above and 'Coastal Salt Production in Norman England') pg. 44 the inhabitants of the inland settlement of Frostenden in Suffolk used boats to each the sea to fish along the coast. The total renders for East Anglia in 1086 ... 3,000,000 fish. Such catches would need to be salted; 'on the lowest assumptions, well over five tons of salt would have been needed to conserve the herring catch'.


 * England's Maritime and Marine Historic Environment Resource Assessment and Research Agenda: Feb 2010 Appendix 4: Original Early Medieval Period Working Group Document (again citing Campbell) pg. 14 - 15 Moreover, Campbell suggests more than five tons of salt would have been needed to conserve the herring catch (Campbell 2002; Morely & Cooper 1922, 4). Campbell also provides plausible evidence that the inhabitants of the inland, riverine settlement of Frostenden in Suffolk used boats to reach the sea to fish along the coast. (repeated on pg. 27)


 * THE DOMESDAY GEOGRAPHY OF NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK pg. 444 The 24 Yarmouth fishermen²; the curious "seaport" at Frostenden; the numerous herring-rents in the coastal hundreds-these things remind us continually that we are in a maritime county. ... One valuable product of the sea in both counties was salt (Fig. 8). [fig 8 shows saltpan distribution] - I agree this source does not substantiate a link between the sea port and saltpan.


 * East Anglian Daily Times of Nov.11.1926 by 'Suffolk Coast' (E.R. Cooper) (it may be noted that Saltworks on the Coast were almost sure indications of [the] Fishing trade [-] the salt being used for curing the fish).

Original article wording: This also explains the presence of a salt house, as listed in the Domesday Book as an asset of the parish, as large amounts of salt would be needed to preserve the herrings they caught. I would agree that the level of certainty expressed here is potentially an issue.

Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 16:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)