Bower
Principal Sources
OSA Vol 7 No 50 1793
NSA Vol XV 1845 (written in 1840)
RMS II (1404) 1478 on original of 1455
RMS IV (1669) 1565 on original of 1564
RMS V (277) 1581 on original of 1580, (2180) 1592 on original dated 1591, (2281, 2287) 1593
RMS VI (2) 1593, (77) 1593-4 on original of 1524, (421) 1595-6, (803) 1598, (1038) 1600, (1729) 1606
RMS VII (129) 1609, (1508) 1616
RMS IX (1098) 1642
RMS XI (53) 1661
RSS I (541) 1500
RSS VIII (1551, 1591) 1583
Retours (Caithness) (6) 1605, (10) 1620, (14) 1624, (17) 1630, (32) 1676
RS37/5/80r 1633
RS20/1/p 198 1665
RS20/1/p 296 1672
GD1/945/1 1433
GD90/1/50/1 1478
GD96/77 1560
GD96/405 1616, GD96/440 1619, GD96/609 1655
GD112/58/1/12-13 1560, GD112/58/1/23 1596, GD112/58/200 No 9 1599
GD139/3 1574, GD139/22 1658, GD139/148 1653-79
RHP667/1-3 c.1770
Johnston, A. W., ‘Caithness Documents from the Protocol Book of David Heart’, Old-Lore Miscellany Vol X pp 16-17, 1935-46
Kirk, J. (ed.), Books of Assumption p 632 ff
Macfarlane’s Geographical Collections Vol. I, SHS, Edinburgh, 1906 pp 176-178 – Description Parish of Bowar in Cathness (c. 1726?)
Macgill, Old Ross-shire and Scotland as seen in the Tain and Balnagown Documents, Inverness, 1909, p 315
The Old Statistical Account for Bower (pp 524-5) contains an interesting list of the services that used to form part of the rent throughout Caithness in the 1750s and 1760s. The change to a fully monetary agricultural economy only took place after that – a common discussion point in both the old and new statistical accounts.
The New Statistical Account (p 114) writes:
The boundary of the parish was formerly, in the greater part of its extent, the boundary of distinct properties.
This observation could hold true of most parishes. Parishes were not some abstract spiritual concept plonked onto the landscape. They grew out of the pre-existing rural economy. For the most part parishes were probably just collections or aggregates of davachs. (Whether there was once a set number of davachs to a parish is another issue)! Accordingly davach boundaries became parish boundaries. The paradox is that Caithness is the one county I have studied where there are exceptions to that rule. We have several examples in Caithness of properties divided between parishes. Murkle was split between Thurso and Olrig. Camster was split between Latheron and Halkirk. I do not know whether Bilbster (Wick) was once the same as its neighbour Bylbster (Watten). Hartfield (and possibly Murza?) may have been shared between Dunnet and Bower.
Why was this? If the davach system was prevalent through most of Scotland prior to the Norse invasions then why should Caithness offer a different picture to that found down the west coast? My sense is that parishes sat on top of davachs in most areas, but in Caithness there is a strong sense of ouncelands imposed over davachs and perhaps complicating that relationship between parishes and davachs. It may be that the Norse colonisation of Caithness was so heavy that when parishes were devised, or reestablished, they followed ounceland boundaries. Alternatively, the fact that parish boundaries sometimes cut across Norse farm-units may mean parishes reflected earlier, but remembered, davach divisions. (The situation in Mull may offer a useful parallel here).
GD112/58/1/12-13 1560 lists Scarinclet (Scarmlet) with mill, Larell, Gelchfield, Cleock and Camstair as composing an 18d unit which made a yearly payment of 4s 4d per pennyland. 18d would be 1 ounceland or 3 davachs. The 4s 4d payment is probably a mistake. RMS V (2180) 1592, on original dated 1591, gives 14s 4d per pennyland, which totals £12-18s for 18d. (=£4 6s per davach of 6d). The Books of Assumption give 14s per pennyland which totals £12 12s.
The table gives a total of 69⅚d which is just shy of 4 ouncelands (or 12 davachs @ 6d per davach). However there are large gaps in the land-assessment record.
Leave a Reply