Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
From Michael Ansell – 4 May 2020
Good evening Alan, then there is G. cladh/claidh, graveyard, burial mound, ditch. I think this is normally anglicised in Galloway as clay/cloy but when I was learning from my Lewis teacher this word was pronounced something like clùgh which might not be too far from cleagh. The terminal dh was definitely sounded – quite distinctly.
I think there is a verb, cladh, to dig, though I don’t see it in Dwelly, I’m sure I can recall phrases like tha mi a’cladh le spaid anns an talamh (I’m digging with a spade in the earth/ground). My lessons didn’t involve the niceties of reading or writing however so I might be spelling that wrong!
Kind Regards
Michael
From Alan James – 4 May 2020
Another nice possibility might be Sc and Ir G claig(e) ‘hollow, dimple’ (same in the plural), maybe orphaned from some earlier Gaelic generic, e.g. *clachan nan claige,
‘stones with the dimples’. I’ve not found a Mx cognate, though cleigh ‘hedge’ is from a verb meaning ‘dig’ (cf. ‘dyke’), so there might have been be a same-sounding verbal noun meaning ‘hole’.
Adrian Room gives Claig as the Irish form for Clegg, Co. Galway, and there is (or was) a Claig castle on Islay, but even more interesting, though frustrating, is Cleagh townland in Clonmany, Donegal, alas neither McKay nor the Flanagans give us any lead on that.
Alan
From Michael Ansell – 4 May 2020
Good afternoon all
A possible non-stony alternative cold be G. cliathach (I wish we know how Cleagh was pronounced). If bisyllabic Clè-agh then cliathach could work. Is this field on a slope? Cliathach means the slope or side of a hill.
Kind Regards
Michael
PS this just shows how these field names change, pity an earlier Rachel had not done this 100 years ago!
From Alan James – 4 May 2020
That’s interesting, I haven’t come across ‘Cleagh’. The field is actually nowadays named ‘Cup and RIng’, it’s Brighouse #12, on which my note reads: The field to the west of Smiddy Field. Cup and Ring marked stones are marked here on current OS maps, Canmore lists two here as ‘possible’. Another is to the east on Green Hill, across the road, and another to the south in field 6, The Clash. Whatever the significance of these mysterious marks, this was evidently a place of some importance in the age when they were made.
Cleagh wouldn’t be easy to interpret out of context, it could have several origins, but I think here it must be the ‘stone’ word, Sc Gaelic clach, Ir cloch, Mx clagh – possibly in the dative-locative, Sc and Ir cloich(e), Mx cloaie. Cla(u)chendolly is close by, from my note on that name: ‘The name is certainly Gaelic *clachan-dollaich: clachan here has its early sense as the plural of clach, so ‘stones’; dollaich means ‘holed, hollowed, pitted’, the name must refer to the notable group of cup-and-ring marked rocks to the south-west of the house.’
I’ll add this earlier name to my Brighouse Farm notes – thanks for pointing it out, David
Alan
From Alan James – 1 May 2020
Maase is in Cregeen’s Fockleyr ny Gaelgey (1835), ‘cattle, kine’. Also, with the same meanings in Phil Kelly’s 1993 update of D.C. Fargher’s Fockleyr Gaelg-Baarle.
Balley Vaish in German is listed in Phil Kelly’s Enmyn Ynnyd, presumably that’s GB’s Ballavaish. Nothing closer to Ballavaase, though there’s Cronk y Vaase ‘hill of the cattle’ in Patrick. Kelly also
has Maase as ‘great ridge’ as in German, Maase Beg ‘little ridge’ in Andreas and Bride, and Poyll Vaaish as ‘pool of death’ in Arobory.
I’ll think further about Tannynaas.
Alan
From Alan James – 6 May 2020
Interesting – date? Ross farm seems to have been located further inland, at about NX645443 on the track up to the Bents, the present farm on the Ross/ Balmangan Bay was Meikle Ross on the 1854 map, but doesn’t appear on this one. But the field-dykes are strikingly similar.
A well is marked at what I take to be Rockvale, and there are some intriguing little lines projecting from the shore – a curve like that of the jetty, and a rectangle like the ‘swimming pool’ in Rachel’s photo? A fresh water source at that spot would have been useful for passing vessels, there was probably some sort of landing place there before the present arrangements were built.
Alan
From Alan James – 14 May 2020
I don’t think so, there isn’t any obvious reason why the name wouldn’t have been put on that piece, in the north of Swine Drum field, cf. Smith’s Plantation by Clauchandolly to the south.
As you see, ‘Dambog Plantation’ is marked at the NW corner of the Cooper Croft field NX651484. It is bounded by a footpath (also not present on the 1854 map) which runs from the burn near the croft, across to the corner of that older, un-named plantation in Swine Drum field, roughly along the 40 metre contour and cutting off that corner of Cooper Croft field; it continues thence over to Culraven. In spite of its name, no trees are shown in Dambog Plantation, so it was presumably new, and it doesn’t appear on modern maps (even from 1920s), so it was probably not a much of a success. But Adam Gray’s list shows the name was remembered, and his separate listing of Dambogs and Dambogs Plantation (sic) as field names would imply that this corner and the remainder of the Cooper Croft field were separate units.
The name implies that there was a mill dam here or in the vicinity, no doubt serving the Mill of Senwick. But no dam is shown on the 1854 map, nor any lade serving the mill, and by the 2nd ed. map, the mill has gone, replaced by Senwick Row. So I guess the dam had been drained and the water re-routed along the Mill Hall Burn, which had obviously been seriously engineered by the time of the 1850 survey. The ‘bog’ would have been what was left by these operations.
An intriguing bit of toponymic archaeology!
Alan
From Rachel Lucas – 14 May 2020
Good spot Alan!! Do you think the actual text refers to the tree symbols in the field to the west (ie, the top end of double drum / swine drum) rather than in Cooper Croft field?
Rachel
From Alan James – 6 May 2020
Thanks David
I’ve just been looking at the map shown in yesterday evening’s presentation, I’ll forward to you the conversation that’s arisen from that.
Further to my query in that discussion about the date, I’ve now enlarged the cartouche and note the name of John Gillon, it’s one of his estate plans –
please remind me when he was active, I think in around the 3rd quarter of 18th ct?
The information in your message below and what’s shown on the 25″ map throws light on the little marks on Gillon’s plan (and confirms the location of the well)
Alan
From David Devereux – 6 May 2020
Hi Rachel
Thank you for sending the 1968 aerial view photo. As I understand it, what you refer to on the photo as the jetty is actually a breakwater and the remains of the feature next to it is an ‘L’ shape quay, partly forming a harbour basin. In the 1890s there was also a jetty (presumably wooden) projecting from the breakwater, see OS 25″ OS plan attached. I don’t know when this was removed. See also attached a Christmas card reproduction of a sketch of the harbour by the Kirkcudbright artist Ann Dallas. This shows dinghies in the harbour and people of the quay. The sketch probably dates to the 1960s; David Collin has identified the sailing dinghies as GP fourteens as used by the Kbt Sailing Club after 1957.
regards
David
From Rachel Lucas – 4 May 2020
Hi
I’ve been re-reading all these emails, what a huge amount of information to take on.
Please could someone tell me why does the name Hac Noose refer to a field which is at the head of the bay, some way from the fish trap, and not one of the fields right next to it? (Rockvale Field & Brighouse Field). Surely you would name the field after the nearest feature?
The last ship to use the jetty at Brighouse Bay was in 1947. A coal ship came with fuel for the village. On the aerial photo taken in 1968, you can see the remains of a feature next to the jetty. I thought it was part of the jetty, but one person speculated that it was a sea-water swimming pool, but I’ve not heard anyone else verify this, or indeed give me some other explanation of it.
Rachel
From Alan James – 1 May 2020
Indeed, that feature at Goat Well Bay (not apparent on the 1854 6″ map) does look like another very possible fish-trap.
And evidently that’s what the surveyors were told it was – a ‘yair’ being
‘A structure erected on the bank of a river or inlet of the sea and extending out into the water,
where fish can be trapped and caught in nets; a fish-trap. ‘ DOST
https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/dost/3are_n
Thanks for the link to the TDGNHAS 1994 report, I haven’t got that volume. It evidently agrees with and confirms the reduction in relative sea-levels over the past 6000 years or so. The superficial deposits along the line of the pipeline reflect a complicated history, with deeper deposits of sand and peat going back to before the last glaciation. More recent events are well explained, the main observation that is relevant to my hypothesis into question being on pp. 20-1:
Third Period of Wind Blown Sand
The soil that formed over the Roman shell middens was covered by an episode of besanding that gave the dune system at Brighouse its present appearance. It is probably this episode of besanding that placed material in the small valley which drains into Brighouse Bay. Here the sand blanketed a peaty mire with up 0.5 metre of material. The sand also partially covered an area of peat 200 metres to the north west from which column 1 was taken.The soil horizon was covered by to 0.5 metre of sand, although locally this was over a metre in places. Above this, the modern soil horizon formed. There is no strong evidence for the date of this episode of wind blown sand. It occurred after the deposition of Roman period objects, but must have been separated from them by some period in time. A possible date for this is suggested by Luce Sands where there appears to be activity in the eighth and ninth centuries AD in dune movements.
Allowing for reasonable margins of uncertainty, that doesn’t seem to me inconsistent with my suggestion that, when Norse-speakers arrived (possiby in the 9th century, more certainly by mid-10th) they would have seen a ‘sandy creek’, extending inland where the peat and sand deposits are shown on Fig. 2 p. 14, overlooked by Senwick on the high ground to the NE. Whether this ‘creek’ was still regularly, or occasionally, flooded by the sea at that time must be uncertain, but I think it reasonable to suppose that the outlet of the valley at the head of the bay was still wide enough for their boats to have come in on the tide to be hauled onto the sand not too far below Senwick.
Alan
From Alan James – 29 April 2020
Dear David
Many thanks for that most interesting and helpful, detailed reply. I’ll take the liberty of sharing it with others involved in the current place-name activity in Borgue, I’m sure they’ll be very interested and might have observations to add.
Concerning Brighouse, my idea of the history of the settlements here would go back to the Norse-speaking settlers in the 10th century, when, allowing for the drop in relative sea-level and formation of the dune system over the subsequent millennium, the bay would have been more of a ‘sandy creek’, *Sand-vík, gaelicised *Sandaig, Sannaig, anglicised Sannick, Senwick. The tide could have flowed almost half a mile further inland towards where Senwick House now stands. A route from Ross Bay via Senwick towards Borgue and further west would have crossed the head of the creek, and perhaps ran via Cairniehill, where the existing farm track looks to be a relic of an old way.
Fast-forward through the centuries, as the sea receded and the dunes formed, the route would have crossed marshy ground and the burn flowing down from Senwick, gradually changing course to take advantage of the drier land on the dunes. By the 18th century, it would have been close to the present-day line, and a bridge over the burn gave the adjacent farm its name (not sure exactly when first recorded: by mid 18th century, as it’s on Roy’s map).
As to the putative fish-trap, indeed Mike Ansell and I thought that feature off Rockvale was the most ‘hook-like’ one on the 1854 map, and the aerial photo at least hints that there may have been some barrier, probably an adaptation of the natural rock formation, that would have formed a pool where fish could, perhaps with the aid of a net or wicker fence, have been trapped when the tide ebbed. The ‘C-trap’ at Fishguard is an interesting comparison: cored is well attested in GPC, from the Book of Llandaf onwards (also, as gored, in Breton); I think such features may have been pretty common in coves around the Irish Sea, largely unrecognised as they became barely distinguishable from natural rock formations. Part of any such trap at Rockvale might well have been destroyed when the landing-place was built c1800. However, it’s rather further from the field apparently called ‘Hac Ness’, which seems to be the one by the turning-place on the road; on the shore there, there is another tidal pool, smaller but clearly visible on the aerial photo, though there isn’t any such obvious ‘hook’.
What you say about Rockvale is interesting, and largely confirms what I suspected. I’d thought the ‘quay’ was probably c1800 and more of a protective wall than a landing place in itself. The possible fish-house is indeed tantalising. I’m a little perplexed that Adam Gray noted Rockvale as ‘a smithy holding’, if there was a blacksmith here, he would probably have been employed with ironware for boats rather than shoeing horses. But maybe the croft was associated with Senwick Smithy shown on the 1854 up near Senwick House.
Devil’s Threshing-Floor – in stormy conditions, the water here can look ferociously agitated, hurling seriously sizeable rocks about, even up onto the road, as you’ll recall happened a few years back – was it Feb 2015? The right-angled feature here is very striking on the 1854 map, as you say similar to the Fishguard one. And the one at Monreith Bay is a nice example, somewhere between the ‘C’ and ‘V’ styles, I think: I wonder if Sir Herbert ever mentioned it in his writings?
I trust you’re all keeping safe and well under lockdown. While the news is sad and troubling, so far as I’m affected, it’s made rather little difference to the way I usually live, I’d even confess to quite enjoying it!
Alan
From David Devereux – 28 April 2020
Hello Alan
I hope this finds you well. Thank you again for your very interesting email and my apologies for the long delay in replying to it. I don’t know of any detailed studies of fish-traps around the Galloway coast, though the cruivies and yairs in the Luce and Cree estuaries, the Dee and at Tongland of course are mentioned in a variety of sources. I’m not aware of much particularly on stone fish-traps locally, but see the following notes.
I think you may be on to something at Brighouse Bay, although I’m seeing possible fish-traps in a slightly different location in the bay. The OSA for Borgue makes no mention of fishing here, but the NSA (1841) refers to a salmon fishery ‘off the South Park shore, at the entrance into Brighouse Bay’ which had just started operation in that year. The account states that this was a bag-net arrangement at the mouth of the bay. Possibly related to this, Canmore describes the small building on Rockvale Quay as a fish-house, and the quay itself as late C18th (after John Hulme, and see attached aerial photo from Canmore). I’m not sure what evidence Hulme had to identify the building as a fish-house, rather than a general store. Having discussed this point with David Collin, the well-built quay is better described as a short breakwater or mole as its cambered sides would not permit a vessel to be tied up alongside it. There were landing quays proper behind it and a jetty (presumably wooden) projecting from it, but the latter now gone. These can be seen on the 1895 OS 25″map attached.
However the 1895 map may also show evidence of an earlier fishery in the form of a curving or hook-shape bank of stone a little further down the bay (marked with a yellow line on the map and aerial view). It may be significant that it matches the curve of the quay and former jetty, and a continuing northward line of stones (also marked). Although clearly depicted on the OS 1854 6″ and 1895 25″ maps, the feature is only just faintly visible today in the aerial view (below the yellow line), and may now be hidden by mud and sand; I’ll aim to visit to see it at low tide at the first opportunity. This form would appear to fit the ‘crescent’ type of stone fish trap as classified by Bannerman & Jones (1999)*; see the illustration attached from Goodwick Beach, Fishguard (from p.20 Medieval and Early Post-Medieval Fish Traps – Dyfed Archaeological Trust, 2013). I note from this that these are called cored or gored (pl.goreddi) in Welsh. This type can occur in pairs, to allow for the variations in the height of the water at spring and neap tides.
Given its shape, could this be the ‘Hac-Noose’ as either the ‘fish-trap headland’ or ‘hooked headland’?
The only other possible stone fish-trap I know of in the Stewartry is ‘The Devil’s Thrashing Floor’ in the Dee a little upstream from Senwick. This is shown clearly on the OS 6″ 1854 map – see attached (my yellow line below it). This would appear to be a classic ‘V’ shape trap (Bannerman & Jones), generally much larger than the crescent-shape type, with the apex of the ‘V’ pointing downstream. The Drumboy trap in the Lough Swilly report is a similar example and there’s another again at Goodwick, Fishguard – see photo attached (from p.19 in the Dyfed report). Here the outer arm or leader is intact but only a short part of the inner leader on the shore side survives. The rest was lost when the railway track was laid along the shoreline. The OS Name Book compiler for Borgue parish found no explanation for the unusual name he was given and stated as much. But I would guess this is a case where a large and inexplicable topographical feature was superstitiously linked to the Devil, and as the feature took the form of a flail, the area was assumed to be his threshing floor! A fine example of another type of fish-trap lies just off Monreith beach (see photo). This type is described as an elongated crescent, constructed parallel to the shoreline, with either end turned slightly towards the shore.
I hope this of interest and would be pleased to hear whether you think the possible fish-traps might fit the ‘hac-noose’ field name. Thank you for directing my attention to Brighouse Bay in this way. The name ‘Brighouse’ here and elsewhere in Scotland also interests me – I don’t see many significant bridges near them, but that would be going off at a tangent!
best wishes
David
From Alan James – 28 March 2020
I’m sure there are, and the history and archaeology of fish-traps along our Galloway coast seems no to have been studies by anyone in much detail, though plenty of sources acknowledge their existence, and importance.
One very interesting recent article about fish-traps on Lough Swilly Co. Donegal includes this observation in the Conclusion, 136-7: The seventeenth century saw significant changes in the political and social culture of Ireland, and the shores of the Swilly were transformed from a Gaelic-dominated landscape to one shaped by settlers predominantly from south-western Scotland, with the Stewart and Cunningham families, from Ayrshire and Galloway respectively, particularly significant.The small communities of their countrymen that followed stood in contrast to the natives in the landscape to the extent of physical separation; as seen from the placenames Scots Aughnish and Irish Aughnish (PRONI D2358/5/1). The Scots arriving in Ulster were familiar with fish traps as a component of their maritime economy — with examples in stone on exposed coasts predominant in Ayrshire and Galloway.
The classic discussion of fish-traps in Scotland, still regularly cited, seems to be: Bathgate, Thomas D. (1949) ‘Ancient fish-traps or yairs in Scotland’. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 83, 98-102 – it’s a charmingly-written account, full of interesting detail. I attach the pdf. More detail on traps he mentions on Loch Broom and the inner Moray Firth can be found at:
https://her.highland.gov.uk/Monument/MHG7841
https://www.scottishheritagehub.com/content/case-study-intertidal-fish-traps-inner-moray-firth
Looking at the maps and photos in those various sources makes me think that ‘hook’ projecting from near the quay at Rockvale could well be a relic of a trap, though probably not a very ancient one – late medieval – early modern. But if ‘Hac Noose’ is < OE haca ‘hook’, I’d still think it referred to the rocks below the field; if it was *hæcc in the sense of a fish-trap, it is very likely that there were traps in this corner of the bay from prehistoric times – while the topography has changed over the centuries, it’s just the kind of spot where the natural rock formations and flow of the water round the bay would have made an ideal location for them.
I’m going to forward this conversation to David Devereux, I think he might find it interesting, and may know of studies that have been done of fish-traps around our coastline.
Sorry to hear of your son’s experience with The Virus, it does sound very nasty, one feels there is a certain English stoical restraint prevailing at the moment, just keep a stiff upper lip and carry on. What our leaders will learn from first-hand experience will shortly become apparent!
Take care
Alan
