Leodis/Loidis

[cnosni]

wiggy wrote: simon2710 wrote: For those who don't already know Leodis/Loidis was the victorian name for Leeds before it changed. It comes from the meaning Loiner or citizen of Leeds.Heres how the name has changed over the years......(Not in order)Loidis -> Leodis -> Ledes -> Leedes -> (currently) Leeds leeds was already called leeds during the time of lelland..(medieval times). indeed Wigster,in fact it was known as such in 1086http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/search?s_it=sb_uk&q=leeds%20domesday%20book

[sundowner]

Cardiarms wrote: I thought the old 'castle' was in the mill hill area? Hi Cardarms In the time of the Celts there would have been no castles.It would have been a settlement surrounded by a ditch with a wall or fence thats why the spot i said fits the bill it has a river and a stream close by and is the highest point around. Has times got better they would have settled at the base of the hill.This would make sence not to have to collect water and drag it uphill plus there crops would have been grown at the base of the hill thus the settlement would spread outward from the old settlement.The rest is history i could be wrong any one got a better idea?    

[Cardiarms]

Yes the medieval mound/earthworks grandly called 'castle' were in the mill hill area, I've no idea about any pre-roman stuff on quarry hill. Poor drainage, marshy vallies and flooding rivers tended to make higher ground and ridges better places to live. Earth works were found up the valley on various spurs in Armley, one at botany bay call the Danish fort and another fortification somewhere near but IIRC lost when the railways were put in.

[sundowner]

Cardiarms wrote: Yes the medieval mound/earthworks grandly called 'castle' were in the mill hill area, I've no idea about any pre-roman stuff on quarry hill. Poor drainage, marshy vallies and flooding rivers tended to make higher ground and ridges better places to live. Earth works were found up the valley on various spurs in Armley, one at botany bay call the Danish fort and another fortification somewhere near but IIRC lost when the railways were put in. Hi Cardiarms I did read that earthworks were found on that site but the very name says it all. I should think no remains will now be found i still think that would be the ideal site to start a settlement that became Leeds.

[Briggy]

cnosni wrote: Briggy wrote: Not sure if this adds to our info, or makes it more complicated, but this is the writing of an historian called Edmund Bogg, some time last century (or the one before!)"In the midst of the large forest, which, in Celto-Roman times, shadowed the kingdom of Elmet, the land of the Leogrys, Leoidi, Ludees, Ledes (the original Celtic people), was a clearing of timber on and around the brow of a small eminence near the river, and within this clearing stood a little settlement; or, as one old British writers with vivid imagination describes it: “The Caer Loid Coit,” which means, “The stronghold of the Leoidi, in the wood of Elmet.” This situation was naturally strong; besides other advantages, it was well watered by river and stream, being in the angle of land between and contiguous to both."Although Leeds is referred to by no fewer than three historians, who wrote in the early Saxon period, very little which can be relied on as authentic is known about the place previous to the Norman era. Bede mentions it as “In regione quae vocatur Loidis;” Nennius as the “Caer Loid Coit;” again, Mailoc or Madoc, brother to St. Gildas, is said “to have journeyed to Luihes, in the district of Elmail” (doubtless the reading should he Luides and Elmet) “ Well thats fine for Mr Bogg,but what is his source,especially for the bit that im interested in is"or, as one old British writers with vivid imagination describes it: “The Caer Loid Coit,"Therein lies the problem,old British writers with a VIVID IMAGINATION.In other words there is some "making up" going on,not factual research.As for Mailoc/Madoc being the brother to St Gildas then heres a link to a bit about St Gildashttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1150-Cara ... htmlBugger me,its taken this long for King Arthur to come into it.Geoffrey of Monmouth has been shown to be the least trustworthy of historians,and once again we have someone who has a veted interest in promoting Celtic/Welsh heritage at a time of of subjegation by Norman kings of England.     Yes, you're absolutely right cnosni, old sources, without any reference to their research can be very unreliable. I just thought it might add another snippet of info to the discussion.Love the above link - what beautifiul language! St Gildas had 23 brothers? I'm surprised his dad had time to be a warrior king.

[cnosni]

sundowner wrote: Cardiarms wrote: I thought the old 'castle' was in the mill hill area? Hi Cardarms In the time of the Celts there would have been no castles.It would have been a settlement surrounded by a ditch with a wall or fence thats why the spot i said fits the bill it has a river and a stream close by and is the highest point around. Has times got better they would have settled at the base of the hill.This would make sence not to have to collect water and drag it uphill plus there crops would have been grown at the base of the hill thus the settlement would spread outward from the old settlement.The rest is history i could be wrong any one got a better idea?     The old castle was actually a fortified manor house,Norman in its founding,and as it suggests was the manor house of the Manor of Leeds,whos associated hunting ground ,for the Lord of the Maonor, is now the area occupied by the "Park" streets ie Park Row,Pak Square.So this is post conquest/Domesday Book, 1066-1086It is believed to have been situated on the present site of the Scarborough Taps.The mention of fortifications on Quarry Hill is merely speculated by Ralph Thoresby in his book Ducatus Leodiensis,published in 1715.Thoresby claims that there were intriuging features on Quarry Hill:-"Upon the ascent of the hill are vestiges of a very large camp;the trenches considering its nearness to the town,and the interposition of so many ages,are very deep:but whether it was a Roman or a Saxon Camp ,i dare not positively assert;tho'from the single vallum (earth rampart) and conveniency of the water (which the Romans always made sure of)at the foot of the hill i suppose it to be the former....somewhat of the vallum is yet retained in the Name Wall-flat"There is a short outline of the history of Leeds at this link,published by the Thoresby Societyhttp://www.thoresby.org.uk/history.htmYou will note that evidence of Celtic settlements have been found at Cookridge.The Illustrated History of Leeds suggests,as has been speculated here ,that Loidis was an area of Elmete and that eventually the main settlement within that area gradually became known as Loidis.Perhaps well never really know,all these tales are in the mists of tme,with no real hard evidence.The only real hard ,physical evidence of inhabitation that can be directly attributed to the founding of modern Leeds,as it is situated now,is the Angle crosses dated to the 8th and 9th centuries.The illustrated history throws another possibility into the mix,in that it is possible that Loidis is the Anglian pronunciation of the British name for the river Aire,and was at first the name of the people living by the river.it also states that it was a two syllable word,and would have been pronuonced "Leedis",even in the middle ages.    

[Magpie]

The castle is more likely an Anglo-Saxon "burh", which is thought to have been built in the Mill Hill area. Among the few tenuous pieces of evidence to support this is the name Boar Lane (Burh Lane, rather than actual boars), which obviously would imply the road to/from the "castle".

Given that very few people outside of Leeds realised we are, in fact, the centre of the universe, the place was deemed to have too little strategic significance to warrant an actual Norman castle, which probably explains the ultimate downfall of mediæval feudalism.

Incidentally, the term "Leodiensian" was retconned from the supposed Latin name for Leeds. As Leeds wasn't considered the centre of the universe by contemporary Latin speakers either, it actually had no official Latin designation. The term was first introduced to describe pupils at Leeds Grammar School, but the activities of the Old Leodiensians (they ran a summer camp for underprivileged kids, for example) got the name recognised outside of the school.

[dsco]

Given that very few people outside of Leeds realised we are, in fact, the centre of the universe...

[String o' beads]

I think we've discussed this before, and someone said that Old Leodiensian is only to be used for LGS old boys, everyone else is a Leodensian. Well - not everyone else. Only people from Leeds and that.

[polos]

I know it's been a very long time since this discussion has been talked about but I'm wondering what other peoples personal feelings on this are I'm well aware its open to interpretation.
Still the earliest time we can date our town to reliably is obviously bede and Thoresby the historian has some insights.
It's very Courious for me and I'd like to pool our knowledge.
I know the basics thoresbys diary/ducatus and a lot of other sources etc. I guess it's hard to guess the lay of the land as it looked to the ancients but I'd love to hear anyone else's opinion.
As far as I know the only physical evidence that we have of anyone being here earlier is the cross that is now on display and the (apparently now now longer discoverable) to roman ford.
Also thoresbys claim to wall/burg/flats (which would be roughly near play house today). I've read so many books/ideas over last 6 or so years I'd love to get this conversation rolling again. It's our oldest history and it'd be a shame if we could peice something together
I know there's a lot more to talk about regarding the first ever history of out town but I suppose what I'm saying where would you look for evidence of earliest structures? Earthworks or wooden structures. Ps I've read many books that some I've forgotten that suggested call lane was the earliest not Kirkgate I'm.not sure though. I know it's a lot to ask but it's my favourite thing about leeds. Many thanks jamie