Kilchrenan and Dalavich Summary

Kilchrenan and Dalavich

 

Principal Sources

 

RMS III (2648, 2902) 1542, (3132) 1543

RMS IV (1592) 1564-5, (1055) 1556, (1307) 1558

RMS VI (209) 1594-5

RMS VII (265) 1610

Argyll Retours (3) 1589, (30) 1627, (38) 1630, (90) 1686

RH6/1775 1558-9

RH6/3039 1589-90

RH9/4/2

 

AS I (72, 76) 1619, (131) 1621, (266-7) 1643, (280) 1645, (312-13) 1649, (314, 320) 1650, (342) 1651, (353) 1652, (382) 1658, (388) 1659, (410-11) 1659, (435) 1660, (525, 545-9) 1674

 

AS II (50, 62-3) 1619, (111) 1621, (126) 1622, (221) 1627, (368-9, 371-2, 378) 1631, (444) 1632, (475, 485) 1633, (514) 1634, (560, 566) 1636, (636) 1638, (646, 652) 1640, (671) 1641, (695-6) 1642, (828, 841-5) 1654, (922, 932) 1656, (1162-3) 1664, (1297) 1666, (1334, 1340, 1361, 1380, 1386) 1667, (1489) 1669

 

RHP 962 Auchnacrive & Barbreck 1748

RHP 31880, 1808

Argyll & Bute Archives DR 2/9/1, G Langlands, 1790

H Fairhurst, Scottish Studies (12) pp 186-7, 1968

 

GD 1/426/1/7 1758

GD 1/426/1/8/1 1678

GD 1/426/1/10 1697

GD 1/426/1/12 1656

GD 1/426/1/23/37 1559

GD 112/1/5 1432

GD 112/2/1/20 1674

GD 112/2/3/1-4 1664-74

GD 112/2/15/1 1674

GD 112/2/70/1/1 1649

GD 112/2/70/2/1-2 1674

GD 112/2/87/3/5 1674

GD 112/2/87/4/7 1699

GD 112/2/93/1 1728

GD 112/2/111/3 1598

GD 112/2/132/11 1699

GD 170/87 1686

GD 437 No 148 1640

NAS CS 46/1913/May No 6 pp 95-97 1660

NAS CS 46/1913/May No 6 pp 103-109 1667

NAS CS 46/1913/May No 6 pp 335-7 1672

Laing Charters No 716 1559-60

Hist MSS Commission 4th Report p 476 No 44 1564, p 477 No 59 1546

 

Misc SHS IV p 292 No 4 1412, pp 294-5 No 2 1528, No 3 1537

HP IV p 33 1556, pp 199-201, 1432

RCAHMS Argyll Vol VII p 540 n 152

 

 

Smith gives 107½m. I find 110⅛m. Trying to establish a pennyland to merkland ratio is problematic because the evidence is patchy and inconsistent. The ratio may also have varied from one part of the parish to another.

 

The first issue is to try and establish the marches that divided the combined parishes of Dalavich and Kilchrenan from their neighbours and secondly to decide the internal boundary between the two. The situation is complicated by the fact that both Dalavich and Kilchrenan had lands on each side of Loch Awe. Fortunately the Argyll Valuation Roll gives us a clear indication of which properties lay in the combined parish in 1751. We have a number of sasines and other documents which tell us which rivers and burns served as marches. We also have some administrative boundaries indicated on the 1st Series OS 6″ maps.

 

On the east side of Loch Awe the north-eastern boundary of Kilchrenan seems to have been Allt na Cuile Riabhaiche between Upper Sonachan and Ardbrecknish. (It is likely that this was formerly or also called Alt Brecknich as in AS I (313) 1649, (314) 1650 etc). The south-eastern boundary of Dalavich was the Abhainn a’ Bhealaich just north of Braevallich. The eastern march between Dalavich and Kilchrenan is more complicated. OS 1st Series 6″ Sheet CXXIV (1871) marks a boundary at an unnamed burn just north of Blarghour at NM 997142. However I think the old parish march may actually have been a little further north at the mouth of Allt Beochlich (NN 0015). There are two reasons for this. Firstly Allt Beochlich is often quoted as a boundary burn in the context of ferrying rights from Portsonochan across Loch Awe. (See AS II (828) 1654, AS I (435) 1660 and NAS CS 46/1913/May No 6 pp 103-109 1667). Secondly this is right opposite Allt Gainmheine which is mentioned in exactly the same context and which probably marked the march between Dalavich and Kilchrenan on the west side of Loch Awe.

 

The evidence of the pennyland to merkland ratio on the E side of Loch Awe is sparse and inconsistent. Upper Sonochan suggests 1d:1m, Penhallich 1d:1½m and Dupenny 1d:1¼m. We have too few facts to arrive at a firm conclusion. The best we can do is suggest a total of 40m for the eastern sections of the combined parish and draw attention to the conversion ratios in neighbouring parishes. Both Glenaray to the east and Glassary to the south had ratios of 1d to 4 merks.

 

(The east side of Dalavich is worth rather more (21¾m) than the east side of Kilchrenan (14¾m) which does pose something of a challenge to my choice of boundaries. Further doubt is thrown by some rather ambiguous comments in the Minutes of the Synod of Argyll Vol 1 p 52 of 1642 which could be construed as implying that the various Sonachans were then part of Inishail, not Kilchrenan).

 

West Dalavich and West Kilchrenan are more evenly matched and were probably originally 40m each. Burns also provided the boundaries on the west side of the loch. We have the same ferry references which suggest that the water called Gannivan (Allt Gainmheine) was an important southern boundary whilst the Awe was a march on the north. (The Awe was the northern boundary of Inishail parish and the Kilchrenan Burn was the northern boundary of Kilchrenan parish). I think the Gannivan must have been the internal boundary between Kilchrenan and Dalavich

 

With regard to the SW boundary of Dalavich we have evidence from OPS II, I pp 98-9 which quotes the Protocol Book of Gavin Hammiltoun for 1572. The stewardship of half of Lochaw was defined as lying between Alt Brecknich and Abhainn a’ Bhealaich on the east shore and Vskekill and Quhorane Kilmoha on the west shore. (In AS I (314) of 1650 these are called Usquekill and Furan Kilmochawe). Usquekill simply means ‘Water of the Church’ (or the Church Burn) and is most likely to be the Kilchrenan Burn. Furan Kilmochawe means the ‘Springs of Kilmaha’ which is probably defined in this way because there is no burn here of any consequence.

 

For the western part of Dalavich parish the evidence is inconsistent. In the area between the SW end of Loch Avich and the head of Glen Domhain (4d of land) I think the rate was the same as that found in Craignish (1d : 1½m) which had a strong and ancient association with Loch Avich. However we then have another 4d of land on the north side of Loch Avich which seems to have had a conversion ratio of 1d:1m. RCAHMS Argyll Vol II No 281 refers to a tradition that the Loch Avich lands became linked to Craignish by a marriage dating to before 1220. This is potentially significant for dating the different ratios but it is not obvious why the lands SW of Loch Avich should have a different conversion rate to those along the north shore of the loch.

 

For West Kilchrenan the evidence is also inconsistent although I would argue for a conversion rate of 1d:2m which is the same as that which obtained in Kilmore and Kilbride which is the adjacent parish to the west. (My totals for West Kilchrenan are 35m or 17d).

 

The overall situation can be summed up as follows:

 

  • East Kilchrenan and East Dalavich came to 40m in total. I do not know the conversion ratio but suspect it was 1d:2m or 1d:4m in which case these eastern sections were worth a total of either 1 ounceland or ½ ounceland.
  • West Dalavich is inconsistent. SW of Loch Avich there seems to be a ratio of 1d:1½m, N of Loch Avich the rate appears to be 1d:1m whilst the total for West Dalavich was probably 40m. I think the data from Loch Avich may be misleading. The local topography doesn’t persuade me that it should be treated very differently to West Kilchrenan and I suspect that West Dalavich was likewise a 1 ounceland unit.
  • West Kilchrenan was 1 ounceland or 40 merks with a ratio of 1d:2m.

 

I think what we are seeing here is the muddle inflicted by late reorganisation. In particular I suspect Dalavich was a mediaeval composite and we do not have enough evidence to see past this to the earlier parish and pennyland structures.

 

There are several parishes in this part of Argyll which suggest a degree of mediaeval restructuring. Firstly we have dedications (or rededications) to saints from the Roman rather than the Celtic pantheon. St Columba’s church of Kilneuair was eclipsed by Kilmichael Glassary; the parish of Kilmartin presumably replaced something older; and we have the church of St Peter the Deacon at Kilchrenan. I do not know what happened at the southern end of Lochawe but it looks as if some mediaeval reorganisation broke up an older, perhaps more endogenous, system. The SE section of Loch Awe is attached to the huge parish of Kilmichael Glassary; the SW portion to the equally important parish of Kilmartin. In each case the focus of the parish is well away from the shores of Loch Awe. I suspect an older parochial system would have been based round Kilneuair in the SE and Kilmun in the SW. It is also surprising to find Kilmaha, which was once an important early Christian site, at the southern limit of the parish of Dalavich. Unfortunately, to try and reconstruct earlier parish boundaries would be largely guesswork.

 

With regard to the old link between Dalavich and Craignish it is worth quoting what Rev Duncan Maclean, Minister of Glenurchy and Inishail, had to say in the New Statistical Account of 1843:

 

It is the current belief, that … at a remote period … Lochawe discharged its waters by its western extremity into the sea at Loch Crinan. The foundation on which this belief rests, is partly a faint and dying tradition in the country to this effect, and the names of some localities in the supposed line of its ancient channel, and the level, open nature of the valley that stretches away towards Loch Crinan from the western extremity of the lake, together with the anomalous character of its present outlet.

 

There is an almost geological feel to this tradition, ‘memory’ or myth. To match this link between Loch Awe and Crinan there was another between Loch Avich and Craignish on a parallel NE to SW axis. One would not otherwise expect an association from the SW end of Loch Avich across the watershed to Glen Domhain. Yet we find references to this axis in charters of the early fifteenth century and, as indicated above, this seems to be partly reflected in the pennyland to merkland ratio.

 

 

Bookmark and Share
Posted in Kilchrenan and Dalavich

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*