Introducing the comparative areas .1 Why a comparative study? .1 Why a comparative study?

The decision to include a comparative discussion of anthropo-toponyms in other areas of Scotland primarily stems from the aim to provide a wider framework for the study of this type of toponym. Models proposed in this thesis are developed by using a geographically restricted set of names from Lewis. To ensure their applicability in a wider context it is necessary to also test these approaches by looking at comparative material. In addition to this, it raises important questions regarding the Lewis material itself. For example, how distinct is the name-material of Lewis, and to what extent are the characteristics of

anthropo-toponyms highlighted here a reflection of the naming-patterns found there? One of the major findings of the research into Lewis anthropo-toponyms is the large amount of variety in terms of the motivations for commemorating individuals in toponyms. This is of special interest considering the often easily made assumption that when a personal name is present in a toponym, this reflects ownership. One of the crucial questions as we come to look at comparative material is to ask to what extent this variety can be seen in other areas of Scotland, and indeed other parts of the world. Therefore, this chapter and the subsequent analysis in Chapter 5 needs to address the question of whether the name-material found Lewis is distinctive in showing a greater variety in terms of the motivations for naming than other areas of Scotland. Conversely, we may find that the motivations for coining anthropo-toponyms outside of Lewis are also more varied than is generally assumed and that a disproportionate emphasis has been placed on ownership as a motivation. In addition to this, even if there are stronger patterns of ownership as a motivation in the comparative areas, can further nuances be detected within this motivation? By studying comparative material, it is possible to consider the importance of language, chronology, the nature of the source material, and the impact these factors might have on how we view anthropo-toponyms. For example, does the presence of earlier source material make it more likely that we can determine a motivation? Are earlier dates more prone to certain types of coinings? Preliminarily, I will tentatively propose that the earlier the recorded forms are, the more likely we are to encounter an ownership-type commemoration. This view is based on the importance assigned to concepts of settlement and land-ownership and that these are more likely to be transmitted, as opposed to other types of commemorations encountered when naming places.

164 4.1.2 The comparative areas

Throughout the research process, various areas were mooted as potential candidates for a comparative survey. It was decided that, to test theoretical models, the most efficient approach would be to use already existing sets of data. This provides an opportunity to study material which is covered on a level of detail which would not have been possible for a comparative study had I compiled it myself. Additionally, this provides data which is unbiased by my own thoughts on anthropo-toponyms and which has not been compiled with the relevant theories in mind, potentially providing a more accurate test of these theories. Based on this, in a Scottish context, there is one obvious candidate. The comprehensive survey of Fife in PNF by Taylor with Márkus (2006-12) forms the first comprehensive study of this scale to be completed in Scotland. Further analysing and utilising the data in these volumes forms a stepping-stone to a fuller understanding of Scottish toponyms. Another advantage of using PNF is the level of contrast to the Lewis material it provides in terms of the transmission of toponyms and Fife’s political, social, linguistic, and topographical history. In addition to the in-depth comparison with Fife, a discussion of the Scandinavian dimension will be included, primarily to shed light on the Norse Lewis material. As previously noted, the Norse data has proved difficult to analyse for several reasons and by including a comparison with Scandinavian material, mainly by looking at LNB, it is hoped that it will be possible to gain a greater understanding of these names.

4.1.3 Methodology

The material discussed here has been collected by going through the indices of personal names and compiling a list of relevant toponyms. Material from PNF is used to analyse the name-material extensively by comparing source material, and considering any visible motivations for naming. The reasoning behind this lies in the large number of anthropo-toponyms found in PNF. In total, PNF contains 383 anthropo-anthropo-toponyms across all

volumes, in seventy-one pre-1975 civil parishes. This can be compared to the roughly 470 head-forms for anthropo-toponyms which have been collected for the Gaelic Lewis data.

To limit the amount of comparative data, after going through all five volumes, the most appropriate one in terms of the frequency of anthropo-toponyms with material pertinent to the discussion was selected – volume four. This volume contains the largest number of anthropo-toponyms, with 131 entries out of 920 entries found in that volume (ca. 34% of

165 the total number of anthropo-toponyms in PNF). Therefore when considering the Fife material, and particularly when approaching the data extensively, volume four is primarily discussed. However, where appropriate, examples have also been drawn from the other volumes. To maintain consistency, only toponyms that are listed under their own head-forms have been included in the extensive analysis. Also, for the sake of simplicity, only instances where the personal name can be reasonably safely identified have been

considered, unless otherwise stated. Had this been a more in-depth study of each of the areas, this may have been approached differently, but the intention here is to provide an overview of the material. When comparing the PNF material to the Lewis material, it should be noted that this is primarily done in relation to the Gaelic entries. As previously discussed, the interpretation of many of the Norse Lewis entries are too tenuous to form any meaningful extensive comparison. The subsequent discussion of LNB and the Scandinavian dimension will tackle that subject.

4.1.4 The comparative areas: Language and sources

Two factors can be viewed as particularly significant when assessing differences between the Lewis data and that of the comparative areas, namely language and source material. In very general terms, the differences in the source material encountered in PNF and Lewis can be summarised as follows: the Fife data is significantly more extensive in terms of early recorded forms. By looking at the earliest recorded form for each of the relevant entries in an area, it is possible to arrive at an average earliest form. In instances where several different personal names are found under the same head-form, each toponym with a different personal name has been considered as one entry, so that in the divisions of

Leuchars we find *Lucheris-Ramsay (1515) and *Lucheris-wemis (1476) as two separate entries (PNF 4, 523-5). Instances where the earliest recorded date is not clear have been excluded, but in instances where a range within a decade has been given, the average has been used. For PNF 4 the average earliest recorded date for all anthropo-toponyms is around 1600, providing a stark contrast with the Lewis material where the first recorded form for the data is generally in the mid-nineteenth century onwards. The average earliest written form for the Lewis data presented here is 1836 (1849 for Gaelic entries and 1817 for the Norse entries). Also, a significant portion of the PNF entries have recorded forms from before the fifteenth century. In addition to this, early source-material in PNF does not only refer to early forms of the toponyms in question: the charters frequently provide important evidence in the form of ownership-transfer and other contextual evidence which might give clues as to how that toponym was coined. For example, Lumbenny Berclay

166

‘refers to the lands of Lumbennie acquired by David Barclay of Collairnie (Dunbog) in 1510 (RMS [Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scottorum] ii no. 3524)’ (PNF 4, 637), giving a strong indication of the motivations behind that particular form of the name. This

provides a significant deviation from the situation we are seeing in the Lewis material. In addition to these points, it is necessary to briefly consider the OSNB dimension. The Ross and Cromarty OSNB have been the primary source for compiling the head-forms and contextual evidence for Lewis, and much of that material reflects the time of their

compilation (1848-52). With the abundance of other evidence in PNF, it is not as reliant on the OSNB and reflects a more diverse range of sources, including early documents such as the Inchcolm Charters, the Register of the Great Seal (Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scottorum), and a significant number of early maps (PNF 5, 136-46). In addition to this, for comparative purposes, it should be noted that the value of the OSNB as a source for contextual evidence relating to toponyms varies greatly depending on the chronology of the data-collection as well as individual surveyors, even within the same counties. A notable example can be found in Buteshire for which a minor comparative survey has been undertaken. Thus, within the same county, we find significant differences between Bute and Arran (which was formerly part of Buteshire) in the number of stories relating to how the anthropo-toponyms on respective islands have arisen. The OSNB entries for Arran record a wealth of etymological stories such as those of King’s Cave: ‘the caves

consecrated by tradition to Fingal and King Robert the Bruce’, Suidhe-Coire Fhionn: ‘One of the stones of the outer circle has a singular perforation to which it is said Fingal used to tie his dog Bran.’, Caibeal Eoin: ‘An oratory or cell of a monk named John stood here, in which place it is said he was buried.’, and Meallach’s Grave: ‘it is popularly believed to be the grave of a giant.’, to mention a few (Buteshire OSNB 1855-64). This is in contrast with the entries for Bute for which stories of this type are largely absent. It is often not clear to what extent these differences are in fact a reflection of the OS surveyors themselves as a source and to what extent it reflects the naming-patterns and local traditions in that area. In addition to differences in source material, a crucial difference between Lewis and the comparative areas is that of language. In addition to providing the framework for the structures of the toponyms in question, the languages reflect the social environment of their coining and transmission. Based on this, a significant question to pose in relation to this material is to what extent the language used when coining a toponym has an impact on the nature of anthropo-toponyms, particularly on the motivations for commemorating

individuals. Of course, it is necessary to highlight the fact that the association of personal names and linguistic origin is often tenuous. We cannot assume that the language of the

167 etymology of a personal name is in any way related to the use of that name. Therefore when discussing language here, I will refer to the language used when coining the toponym in which a personal name is found. In very general terms, the Fife data reflects a

chronology of Pictish, Gaelic and Scots, whereas the Lewis toponyms consist of a chronology of Norse and Gaelic (Taylor 2002, 13). However, it should be noted that this provides a simplified view of the situation and we need to ask how important the role of language and language chronology is to the coining of anthropo-toponyms. Based on this, the aim of the comparative survey is partly to evaluate whether it is possible to pin-point any of these language-based differences.

4.2 Studying the anthropo-toponyms of Fife