|
Thank you John and Niven for your timely
contributions.
One of the curious aspects that led me on
a tangent this summer in research was the use of gaelic language and the naming
or descriptive uses of the names of individuals. Let me share with you what I am
gradually discovering.
One is that the naming traditions before 1600
are something of a mystery. We are so imbued with the thought that an individual
has to have a christian name and a surname it comes a bit foriegn to us that a
surname may not be important or more easily descriptive than a proper family
surname. It may be advanced that surnames were not important, not commonly used
and never were written where the culture was illiterate, (meaning they couldn't
either read and /or write or had little need to learn). This was widespread
before 1700 and very widespread before 1600 in rural areas as well as the
cities.
In discussions of this aspect of the absence of
a Proper Surname name in social traditions I have found the reasons were simple.
The concept of ancestral history was limited to those with property and others
simply had no reason to use or adopt one in the absence of a need for written
records. The key importance for naming was Christian names which focused then if
anything primarily on father - to - son relationships. I have found it is with
Christian naming patters that the ancestral ties were preserved. Hence the
practice was common of using grandfathers names as Christian names for their
grandchildren.
Descriptive names in both Gaelic and
English were common and refered to the individuals trade or occupation. It
was oddly enough an early form of advertising and recognizing the skills or
abilities of the individual. Secondarily, some descriptions were based on
geography. This ment that we had descriptive names in both languages ie
Gealic=Ceards and ie. English = Smiths. Now the key question is simply that one
can make no assumption that everyone carrying the trade name or a descriptive
name was related by blood nor can one assume that the gaelic "sons of"
all were related to one another. This may be different when the "son
of" refers to a proper name ie. MacDougall or son of Dougall.
The conclusions I get thus far, is that the
naming traditions were, prior to 1600, at best confusing and at worst followed a
number of social patterns that combined descriptions of trades, geography and
tradition, families and titles. The further back one gets in time the more the
social use of surnames / proper names appears unimportant (apart from property).
On the other hand from 1700 to today the use of surnames becomes increasingly
important until today it requires a statutory process to legally change ones
name after birth. Not so in Shakesperes time. This conclusion in so far as I
have come to have a conclusion, is limited in this one important
aspect. In Scotland and elsewhere there were common use of surnames based
on geography and family relationship going well back in time to before 1000 with
some family names which obviously are the basis of what we appreciate today as
the core of Clan History. But these names are best traceable with the chief or
lairds connected with title and family peoperty. Hence the line of the Earles of
Caithness and Sinclair is well documented through lineage, property and title.
This does not apply directly to the general population of the Orkneys, Caithness
or for that matter Argyll betewn 1000 and 1800.
The second I have a really interesting learning
curve to understand and that is our assumptions arising from gaelic as a
langauge written and spoken. I am further behind here. Gaelic is blurred with
Scots useage, dialects and it being a "sort of dead language" here is
North America. It does not help that it was outlawed in 1745 in Scotland and
English became dominent for education. I have good evidence that gaelic was
spoken widely in Argyll and used by the first immigrant Sinclairs to Canada and
the United States and Australia (1200-1850'sff). There is a revival movent today
with the language and there are 2 colleges of Gaelic in Nova Scotia and Celtic
study departments are here in the University of Toronto and St Francsis Xavier
University to name a couple of other acedemic institutions. I have learned two
thing on this, it is a tough language to learn and appreciate and secondly I am
not about to devote what it takes to absorb this so I have approached some wiser
than I in the spealing of the Gael..
Now Niven you may have given a clue for the
dispora of the Sinclairs when at one point you suggested that there were at
least 11 pockets of Sinclairs that started following the Battle of Hastings and
that they may have initially dispersed all over. This would be interesting if
true because it would not be illogical as other families did this. The tight
unit of families associated with geography is not a neat as we would hope.
Now the current speculation of skin colour I
have reservations about. One can remember that if any gene mix from 1588 is
examined there are some 20 or so generations of "mixing" and whether
we are dark or light skinned is very moot. Even if there was a pocket of Spanish
that did not inter mingle I imagine that physical characteristics are complex
when origins are studied. Then one realls the migrations into Argyll 1700 to
1900 were massive Sinclairs included and all best are off. I mention the fair
skinned red heads but in my family they could have come as easily from the Earle
of Morton as from the Sinclairs of Argyll.
Now some of the discussion with the Spanish
recalls some of the debate with Mr. Ramsay as to proofs and folklore. Our group
has been reading all we can on Argyll and this Spanish hypothesis has just now
surfaced. Karen informs us that McNokairds go back to 1200 in naming traditions
and the Spanish is a connection with 1588? The interesting part is the
connection with Gaelic in Spain illustrating if anything those picts and scots
"got around". Still even verbal folklore has an importance so we wait
to learn more.
So the Sinclair History is advancing a bit and
the current discussion is relevant to Sinclairs whether they be tied to
Caithness the Orkneys or the Argyll regions and assists us in appreciating
genealogy, names, and derivations of names in a social context.
Yours Aye;
Neil
|