Origin of the 'Clan' Gunn - and it's not from the Orkneys or Norway
'Clan' Gunn Origin
The name Gun appears to have been the same as the Welsh Gwyne and the name Gawne still common in the Isle of Man
a quote in Thomas Sinclair's The Gunns, pages 20-21
It is of some interest to note that the Gaelic word 'guin' signifies a pang of pain, or a dart, and in the old Gaelic it was used to denote fierceness...
Mark Rugg Gunn page 266
PART ONE
The 'Clan' Gunn is not from the Orkneys and nor does it have any Norse / Viking origin .
The most logical idea for the origin of the Gunns is provided by Thomas Smibert in his The Clans of the Highlands of Scotland being an Account of their Annals, Separately and Collectively with Delineations of their Tartans and Family Arms 1850 Edinburgh, James Hogg.
Thomas Smibert’s work is an important (and massively undervalued) summary of Gunn history mainly because he focuses on primary or linguistic sources. When reading his history consider
1) Note ‘cheeff of the Clan Gunn in Southerland’ suggesting Sutherland Gunns were led by a Chieftain (meaning the Gunns did not have an overall Chief as this ‘Southerland’ line is the one some now view as the ‘Chief’ line);
2) “William Mackames (cheiftane of the Clangun), heer mentioned, was called Cattigh” shows these Sutherland Gunns with a ‘Chieftain’ as their leader;
3) ‘the chronicler adds and interpolates the remark, that “John Robson (Mackames) chiftain of the Clangun in Catteness, did now of late, the yeir of God 1618...’ so showing that the Caithness Gunns in 1618 had their own Chieftain line (this issue is discussed under the 'Chief' Issues / Lord Lyon tab) and this is in Robert Gordon’s time so he is a valid primary source;
4) ‘1586 ... took captive the next chief George (Mack-ean Mack-rob) Gunn’ so in 1586 the MacRob Gunns were possibly Chief of the Gunns – or perhaps just very notable Chieftains. Given the preceding point this means for at least a period of over thirty years the MacRob Gunns were either Chief of the Clan Gunn or independent Chieftains of the Clan Gunn. (Is it more useful to talk about three independent minor Clan Gunns? Or three linked Chieftain lines with no overall Chief? I’m not yet sure...)
5) Keiths were just Caithness people (and not the family of Keith);
6) note the unimportance placed on being a ‘crowner’;
7) and much more...
Overall - Smibert puts forward the idea that the origins of the Gunns were as the original Gaelic inhabitants (and, by implication Picts at an earlier stage), and that no one single Clan Gunn Chief ever existed.
CLAN GUNN
Most writers on the annals of the Scottish Highlanders do not reckon the Clan Gunn as among the septs entitled to a full or separate notice at all. It strikes us however that they are perhaps among the very purest remnants of the Gael to be found about Sutherlandshire and the adjoining parts. So thinks Stewart of Garth, obviously, since he takes care in mapping the territories of the clans, to allude to Sutherlandshire as including the Gunns or Clan Guinn. It is probable that they belong mainly to the same stock which produced the great body of the Sutherland population, that latter name having been adopted, as already explained, from the title given to the region by the Norsemen, and not being connected with the true origin of the Gaelic natives.
There are several stories on record respecting the descent of the Gunns (Guns or Guins). The same old family genealogist, who was cited respecting the race of Gilleandris a name changed successively into Gilleanrias, Leandris, Anrias, Rias, and lastly Ross) calls the first Guin “one of three brethren Guin, Lead and Leandris, who come out of Denmark to the north pairts of Scotland, to follow ther fortune; and Guin took possession of the Braes of Cathnes wher his posterity remanes to this day called the Clan Gunn.” The continuation of the tale is that Leod founded the Macleod sept; and we admitted it to be probably true that the Macleods of the Isles really had a liberal share of Norse blood in their veins, though the account here mentioned had little weight in causing that decision. As distinctly was it stated, however, that the Clan Ross appeared to us to be almost purely of the native Gaelic race. Of the Clan Gunn the same opinion must be expressed. The name seems to be Gaelic or Celtic, and identical with that of Gwynne, so common among the Celts or Gwaelsh of the west of England. The word in the Erse tongue has certain meanings, rendering it not inappropriate as a name for a wild tribe of mountaineers in the old days. As a substantive, guin signifies “fierceness,” and also “pain,” “a wound,” “a sting,” “a dart;” while as a verb, it means “to wound pierce or sting;” and, as an adjective, framed from the same root, it has the sense of “sharp keen bitterly malicious.” So say Drs Norman Macleod and Daniel Dewar in their Gaelic dictionary. It therefore seems likely that guin was a generic term applied to some of the rudest and most northerly of the Scottish Highlanders in very early times, as well as to the hill men of Wales, similarly situated. The name of the Siol Cuinn, applied to the Highlanders of Argyle, is probably the very same name. However, the names are now Gunn and Wynne, according to the common modes of spelling. Even the definite arrangement of families into all the varieties of Macs, which formed a sort of approach on the part of the more inland Highlanders to the usages of civilised life, appears to have been unknown in the far north. This supposition is strengthened by the fact, that the Gael on the most southerly borders of the Highlands surpassed the inland tribes in regularity of nomenclature, as much as these did the ultra northern. The names of Farquharson, Robertson, and Ferguson, within the Perth and Forfar limits exemplify what is here meant.
In short we repeat our belief that the name of Gunn had a generic origin, indicating a “fierce” tribe; and that they had been so christened by those around them who first possessed or attained to any knowledge of the art of nomenclature, or had occasion for its use. Nor need the Clan Gunn distress themselves about the barbarism thus “nominally” imputed to their sires. Even the general name of “Scots” appears to come from an Erse term signifying, in its mildest sense, “wanderers;” the Belgae, again, were “ravagers;” while multitudes of other entire nations cannot boast even of such decent sources for their designations. These, however, became commonly permanent, simply because the Romans (in most instances) moulded the primitive terms which struck their fancy, or came in their way, into their own tongue, in referring to the countries conquered by them; and because nearly all the early learning of these said countries sprung from and through them, the first native historians having no other written languages at command, save the classical ones, and especially the Latin. It may be thought that this subject has been too much dwelt upon, considering the Gunns to have long been but a secondary sept of Sutherlandshire; but, in reality, the question has a general bearing. Such native stories as that of “Guin the Dane” cannot stand, in our eyes, against the more common-sense view of the subject, although these stories may be found in manuscripts two or three hundred years old. One word of one able and educated historian is generally of far greater worth than hundreds of merely traditional tales recorded by men unknown, and men for the most part plainly unqualified for the task of repeating even hearsays of hearsays correctly and intelligibly. Every person of ordinary sense must have noticed, besides, how inconsistent is the conduct commonly of those who love to refer to old MSS. They will often laugh loudly when pointing to witch-stories, appearances of the devil, and so forth; and yet in the next sentence will they gravely accept the reporters of these as authorities on ancient genealogical and historical questions of moment, though the same blinded ignorance must have actuated the writers on the one point as well as the others, and though sound and really credible annalists may have told a very different tale.
The Gunns are represented as living mainly, as far as they were a separate sept, to the north of Dunrobin Castle, which stands on the eastern coast of Sutherlandshire. They had chieftains of their own name, though these might hold a second place in respect of the Sutherland earls; and they had a castle of their own, called Halbury. Several traditions respecting the Gunns are current in their native district. The following is curious, if it were but from the names . The “Keiths” mentioned are plainly the men of Kaithness merely; and the word “crowner” (if we are to interpret the Gaelic word chruner as crowner) seems to imply merely the judicial agent or representative of the superior lords of the country.
“Towards the end of the fifteenth century the chief of the Clan Gun (or Gunn here adopted as the best form of the name) was George Gunn, who lived in feudal dignity in his then impregnable castle of Halbury; but he was better known as Crowner Gunn, or as he was called by the Highlanders, “N’m Braistach-more,” from a great brooch which he wore as the badge or cognisance of his office of crowner He had a deadly feud with the chief of the Keiths; and having met in St Tyre's chapel for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation, but without success, they were solemnly agreed to decide their quarrel, if they could not do so amicably on a future day, by equal combat between twelve sons or relatives of each chieftain. The crowner and the leader of the Keiths approached each other in full armour; but it was soon discovered by the Gunns that there were two riders on every horse in the party of the Keiths, and consequently the latter party had twenty-four men opposed to the twelve followers of the crowner. This vile stratagem instantly revealed to the Gunns that their destruction, by unfair means, was determined upon. They scorned, notwithstanding the great odds against them, to retreat before their enemies the Keiths; and fought most desperately, but could not withstand the great odds that opposed them. After a long-continued struggle, the survivors on both sides were so much exhausted that the combat was mutually dropped - the Keiths being so far the victors as to leave the field with their banner displayed, and to be able to carry with them their slain companions; while in the ranks of the Gunns, the crowner and seven of his party were killed, and the remaining five were all severely wounded. The Keiths proceeded to Dilred Castle in Strathmore, then occupied by Sutherland of Dilred, where they were hospitably entertained. The five surviving Gunns, who were all sons of the crowner, also retired, but tarried at another stream, since then called Alt Torquil after Torquil Gunn, one of the survivors, who there dressed the wounds of his brothers. Towards evening Henry-beg, the youngest of the surviving brothers of the Gunns, proposed that they should follow the Keiths and endeavour to obtain revenge, even by stratagem such as the Keiths had recourse to. They arrived at Dilred Castle soon after nightfall. On approaching the castle, its wooden windows or shutters were found open, and around a large fire in the lowest apartment the survivors of the Keithe were quaffing bumpers of ale; and Henry, who went close to one of the windows, heard them narrate, with boisterous delight, the losses sustained by the Gunns. The chief of the Keiths, not apprehensive of any danger, accidentally approached the window where Henry stood, and the latter then bent his bow, and in another instant his arrow pierced the chieftain's heart; Henry at the same time boldly accompanying the deadly flight of his arrow with the exclamation (afterwards used in the North Highlands as a proverb) of “The Gunn’s compliments to Keith.” The old chief dropped down dead; a panic seized the other Keiths; and the three Gunns, having darted forward to the door of the cattle, slew some of the first persons who ventured out by it; but finding that they could not retain their position long, Henry and his two brothers retired silently under cover of the darkness of the night, and hurried back to the assistance of the other brothers, who had been unable to accompany them.”
Other stories are told of the Gunns, but their history in old days, as observed, is chiefly mixed up with the general annals of the Sutherland and Caithness tribes. In the “Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland” written up to 1630 by Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstone, and continued to 1651 by another party, several notices of the Clan Gunn occur incidentally. At a skirmish which took place in A.D. 1517 “William Mackames-Wick-Chruner (the name being plainly the same as “Crowner” just noticed) cheeff of the Clan Gunn in Southerland” was present against the Mackys or Mackays and gave them a signal defeat, two or three hundred men being slain on the unsuccessful side. The exact words of Sir R. Gordon writing not very long afterwards, are – “Their wer two hundred of the Strathnaver men slain, theirtie two of the Seill (Siol) Faill and fyfteen of the Seill-Thomas. The commander of the vanquished in this affair is called “Neill-Mackean-Mack-Angus” and his brother is styled John Moir-Mackean from whom “descended a race of people called the Slaight-Ean-Voir,” which means the race of John the Great. The whole of this extract proves accuracy in Gaelic nomenclature to be a point utterly unattainable. Indeed, this battle with the “Mackys” may only be a version of the fight with the Keiths. The name of Keith (odd as it may seem) is easily changed into Mac-Kays or Mac-Kaiths. The common source of the people is further made obvious in reality.
Sir Robert Gordon proceeds to say that “William Mackames (cheiftane of the Clangun), heer mentioned, was called Cattigh. He wes borne and bred in Southerland. From him are descended the Clangun that dwell at this day in Strathully. They have alwyse since that tyme had the lands of Killeirnan for ther service, from the Earles of Southerland, unto whom they have ever been both trusty and faithfull.”
It is plain, from these and other incidents, that the people of Sutherland Caithness and Moray, were always named from their localities when viewed en masse, and from their immediate sires when spoken of specially, having no baptismal registrations. The Sutherland men are spoken of always as fighting with southern parties of the name of “John-Roy-Moray,” and such like; or else they fought with Mackians or Mackys on their northern borders. Mackames (which means Macjames or Machamish) seems to be the oldest Gaelic sept name of the Gunns. The point is not of peculiar moment, the conclusion being clear that they are true Celtic Highlanders.
At the close of the sixteenth century, there seem indeed to have occurred bloody feuds betwixt the Sutherland and Caithness men, or, in other words, betwixt the Gunns and a branch of the Mackays. Sir Robert Gordon says, that the horrible encounters, the bloodshed, the spoiling, together with “their asperous names,” prevent him from giving details. The Clan Gunn appear to have come by the worst at times between the Caithness and Sutherland earls. At a meeting of the two (says Sir Robert Gordon) “it was concluded amongst them that some of the Clangun should be made away;” and the poor Clan Gunn seemed destined to destruction. The business ended in that final separation of the Gunns from the Mackays and Sinclairs, to whom they had been before attached, which has been mentioned. Sir R Gordon says on the subject of the tribe; -" The Clangun are a race of people dwelling within the diocese of Catteness and are divyded among the thrie countries of Southerlnnd Catteness and Strathnaver. They are verie courageous, rather desperat than valiant.” They came at last from under the power of the Mackays and Sinclairs, as said, and such of the tribe as have still dwelt in Southerland have ever been faithful to their masters, the earles of Southerland. Their “commander and chieftane is called Mack-wick-Kames, and remaineth alwyse in Killiernan in Strathully, wher he hath some landes and possessions from the earles of Southerland, as a fee for his service.” Alluding to his own time, the chronicler adds and interpolates the remark, that “John Robson (Mackames) chiftain of the Clangun in Catteness, did now of late, the yeir of God 1618, mak his refuge of Southerland, having fallen out with the Earle of Catteness and Мackу; so that this whole surname doth for the present depend altogether upon the house of Southerland.”
It was in the year 1586 that the Guuns were pursued both by the men of Caithness and Sutherland. Almost by chance they fought the former and beat them. This proved the critical event in the fortunes of the Gunn family. At first, indeed, both the Caithness and Sutherland earls turned their powers against the sept, and took captive the next chief George (Mack-ean Mack-rob) Gunn after a skirmish in which he fought most stoutly, and being vanquished, threw himself into a lake, “sore-wounded,” to make a last struggle for life and liberty. After being liberated, as it is said, he attached himself to the party to whom he deemed himself most deeply indebted, the Earl of Sutherland; and the clan and family became fixed adherents, as related, of that noble house. It was not until the year 1619, however, that they were formally dispossessed of all their lands held under the Caithness family, and also of their holdings under the Mackays; whereupon the whole “retired themselves with their families, into Sutherland.” Alexander (Davidson or) Gunn and his race were placed by Sir Robert Gordon in Strathully. Some small portions of the old Caithness possessions, however, were afterwards recovered.
It is clear, from this whole and rather confused story, that the Gunns had been a branch of the purest aborigines of the north. The Sinclairs and such like baronial incomers might gain the upper hand as rulers through regal favours and other causes; but they could not materially change the breed of the people.
It is remarkable enough, that the admitted head of this genuine tribe of the indigenous Gael of northern Scotland, George Gunn Esq., of Sutherlandshire, holds at this hour nearly the same position, relatively to the main lords of the soil, that the before-mentioned crowner, or justiciary of the same family, seems to have held two or three centuries since. The present chief of the Clan Gunn is a gentleman alike estimated by the Sutherland house, and by the numerous body of people of whom (under them) he takes a portion of charge.
Being pages 170-173.
The argument presented by Smibert is far more logical than the Clan Gunn Norse / Orkney / Viking story; the Gunns are much better viewed as Picto-Celtic inhabitants of northern Scotland. A non-kindred, regional 'tribe', if you like.
PART TWO
'The name Caithness is derived primarily from a tribal rather than a place name and appears to have been given to the indigenous people in question, 'the Cats' by their Celtic-speaking neighbours. (Ref: Professor Bill Nicoliasen in, Baldwin, John. R. ed. (1982) Caithness - A Cultural Crossroads. Edinburgh: Scottish Society for Northern Studies).
Given Cats was primarily a tribal name it adds support to the idea that Gunn could also be a tribal name (as suggested by Smibert) due to the Gunn proximity to Caithness.
And further - 'The country north of the Oykell was in Gaelic named 'Cataobh' which may be connected with 'Catti,' Ptolemy's name for the inhabitants in the second century.'
This idea is important; the name Caithness is based on a pre Celtic - and pre-Norse - name for the inhabitants of the Caithness area. This adds to the possibility that the people next door to this Caithness tribe could easily also have a name based on a pre-Celtic and pre-Norse - name.
PART THREE - Caithness, Clan Chattan and Clan Gunn origin
With respect to the aboriginal inhabitants of Caithness, little or nothing certain is known. The earliest of whom there remain any traces were the Cattaich or Catti a Celtic sept .... It may be worthy of remark that Cattaich (the Catti) and catanich, those of the Clan Chattan, have the same root...
So not merely were the people of Caithness 'holders' of a tribal name it now seems that Clan Chattan's roots were possibly based on this Caithness tribe. It is said that
The clan does not follow the ordinary pattern of other Scottish clans, in that it was a community or confederation of clans whose chiefs were the descendants of the original ancestors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattan_Confederation
So Clan Chattan is an example of a Clan which may have descended from the earliest inhabitants of Caithness. If it's possible for one Caithness Clan why should not the Clan Gunn be similarly based? It stretches belief to assume that all Clans descend from someone famous; surely we are past the 19th century ' great man in history' idea...
PART FOUR - On Gunns as Campbells or Campbells as Gunns
‘Campbells – In Gaelic they are called Clan Guin...’
Page V of the Appendix, Col. David Stewart, Sketches of the Highlanders of Scotland Volume 2. The idea is also picked up in Scottish Studies, Volumes 17-19, page 11.
So a Gunn / Campbell link and I have found it from one other source which says 'Duncan Forbes of Glenco refers to the Campbells as 'Clan Guin'.
The below adds support for the idea;
In traditional genealogies of the Clan Campbell, its origins are placed amongst the ancient Britons of Strathclyde.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Campbell and
'the paternal ancestry ... is apparently from the Britonic celts of Strathclyde'
So Campbells seem to come from a tribal group; just like Smibert argued for Gunns...
and if you look at The New Statistical Account of Scotland Volume 4, page 1834
Page 95 -
The principal clans in the parish are, those of M'Kay, Sutherland, Campbell, Morrison and Gunn; the two former generally distinguished by fair hair hair and blue eyes, - the Campbells and Gunn, by dark eyes and dark complexion.
So it's not the Gunns who have the Scandinavian complexion. So it's a further suggestion that the Gunns do not have such ancestry.
PART FIVE - Calidonii and Caledonia / Calidonia
It is useful to consider the Roman origins for Caledonia / Calidonia / Caledonii.
Ptolemy locates a specific tribe of this name (Calidonii) .... they are specifically a confederation of tribes occupying northern Scotland (page 291)
Calidonia ... applies .... to the ethnic and personal names ... The regional name is doubtless a Roman creation ... a sort of abstraction from the ethnic Calidonii who seem to be 'hard men, tough men' ... it can not be proved to be Celtic, and may therefore very possibly be pre-Celtic' (Page 289)
Being from A.L.F. Rivet and Colin Smith's The Place-names of Roman Britain
In other words ethnic Caledonii is derived from terms meaning 'hard, tough men' so it is quite logical that the Gunns - who are at the very least on the border with the Caledonii - have a name also based on being 'fierce'. The Caledonia name being derived from terms of behaviour (or how others view you) seems totally accepted so it makes sense for the similar Gunn origin to be totally accepted; the fanciful Orkney idea (when surnames were not even being passed down, with no proof of any connected history before Gunn Crowner - we don't even know coroner Gun's parents!) needs to be rejected as a 19th romantic invention.
The 'Clan' Gunn is not from the Orkneys and nor does it have any Norse / Viking origin .
The most logical idea for the origin of the Gunns is provided by Thomas Smibert in his The Clans of the Highlands of Scotland being an Account of their Annals, Separately and Collectively with Delineations of their Tartans and Family Arms 1850 Edinburgh, James Hogg.
Thomas Smibert’s work is an important (and massively undervalued) summary of Gunn history mainly because he focuses on primary or linguistic sources. When reading his history consider
- The logic of the linguistic basis offered for the name Gunn. Compare it with the Norse / Orkney story – we don’t know who Crowner Gunn’s parents were (Gunn Crowner is meant be dead circa 1464), let alone have a proven, linked set of names to get back to the Orkneys in the early 1200s. Family names (surnames) were not set for many hundreds of years after the Norse / Orkney time so why – and how - would there be any link to a random 1200s ‘Gunn’?
- Consider the importance of Gordon’s writing which Smibert quotes; Gordon is basically current with key events of Gunn history.
1) Note ‘cheeff of the Clan Gunn in Southerland’ suggesting Sutherland Gunns were led by a Chieftain (meaning the Gunns did not have an overall Chief as this ‘Southerland’ line is the one some now view as the ‘Chief’ line);
2) “William Mackames (cheiftane of the Clangun), heer mentioned, was called Cattigh” shows these Sutherland Gunns with a ‘Chieftain’ as their leader;
3) ‘the chronicler adds and interpolates the remark, that “John Robson (Mackames) chiftain of the Clangun in Catteness, did now of late, the yeir of God 1618...’ so showing that the Caithness Gunns in 1618 had their own Chieftain line (this issue is discussed under the 'Chief' Issues / Lord Lyon tab) and this is in Robert Gordon’s time so he is a valid primary source;
4) ‘1586 ... took captive the next chief George (Mack-ean Mack-rob) Gunn’ so in 1586 the MacRob Gunns were possibly Chief of the Gunns – or perhaps just very notable Chieftains. Given the preceding point this means for at least a period of over thirty years the MacRob Gunns were either Chief of the Clan Gunn or independent Chieftains of the Clan Gunn. (Is it more useful to talk about three independent minor Clan Gunns? Or three linked Chieftain lines with no overall Chief? I’m not yet sure...)
5) Keiths were just Caithness people (and not the family of Keith);
6) note the unimportance placed on being a ‘crowner’;
7) and much more...
Overall - Smibert puts forward the idea that the origins of the Gunns were as the original Gaelic inhabitants (and, by implication Picts at an earlier stage), and that no one single Clan Gunn Chief ever existed.
CLAN GUNN
Most writers on the annals of the Scottish Highlanders do not reckon the Clan Gunn as among the septs entitled to a full or separate notice at all. It strikes us however that they are perhaps among the very purest remnants of the Gael to be found about Sutherlandshire and the adjoining parts. So thinks Stewart of Garth, obviously, since he takes care in mapping the territories of the clans, to allude to Sutherlandshire as including the Gunns or Clan Guinn. It is probable that they belong mainly to the same stock which produced the great body of the Sutherland population, that latter name having been adopted, as already explained, from the title given to the region by the Norsemen, and not being connected with the true origin of the Gaelic natives.
There are several stories on record respecting the descent of the Gunns (Guns or Guins). The same old family genealogist, who was cited respecting the race of Gilleandris a name changed successively into Gilleanrias, Leandris, Anrias, Rias, and lastly Ross) calls the first Guin “one of three brethren Guin, Lead and Leandris, who come out of Denmark to the north pairts of Scotland, to follow ther fortune; and Guin took possession of the Braes of Cathnes wher his posterity remanes to this day called the Clan Gunn.” The continuation of the tale is that Leod founded the Macleod sept; and we admitted it to be probably true that the Macleods of the Isles really had a liberal share of Norse blood in their veins, though the account here mentioned had little weight in causing that decision. As distinctly was it stated, however, that the Clan Ross appeared to us to be almost purely of the native Gaelic race. Of the Clan Gunn the same opinion must be expressed. The name seems to be Gaelic or Celtic, and identical with that of Gwynne, so common among the Celts or Gwaelsh of the west of England. The word in the Erse tongue has certain meanings, rendering it not inappropriate as a name for a wild tribe of mountaineers in the old days. As a substantive, guin signifies “fierceness,” and also “pain,” “a wound,” “a sting,” “a dart;” while as a verb, it means “to wound pierce or sting;” and, as an adjective, framed from the same root, it has the sense of “sharp keen bitterly malicious.” So say Drs Norman Macleod and Daniel Dewar in their Gaelic dictionary. It therefore seems likely that guin was a generic term applied to some of the rudest and most northerly of the Scottish Highlanders in very early times, as well as to the hill men of Wales, similarly situated. The name of the Siol Cuinn, applied to the Highlanders of Argyle, is probably the very same name. However, the names are now Gunn and Wynne, according to the common modes of spelling. Even the definite arrangement of families into all the varieties of Macs, which formed a sort of approach on the part of the more inland Highlanders to the usages of civilised life, appears to have been unknown in the far north. This supposition is strengthened by the fact, that the Gael on the most southerly borders of the Highlands surpassed the inland tribes in regularity of nomenclature, as much as these did the ultra northern. The names of Farquharson, Robertson, and Ferguson, within the Perth and Forfar limits exemplify what is here meant.
In short we repeat our belief that the name of Gunn had a generic origin, indicating a “fierce” tribe; and that they had been so christened by those around them who first possessed or attained to any knowledge of the art of nomenclature, or had occasion for its use. Nor need the Clan Gunn distress themselves about the barbarism thus “nominally” imputed to their sires. Even the general name of “Scots” appears to come from an Erse term signifying, in its mildest sense, “wanderers;” the Belgae, again, were “ravagers;” while multitudes of other entire nations cannot boast even of such decent sources for their designations. These, however, became commonly permanent, simply because the Romans (in most instances) moulded the primitive terms which struck their fancy, or came in their way, into their own tongue, in referring to the countries conquered by them; and because nearly all the early learning of these said countries sprung from and through them, the first native historians having no other written languages at command, save the classical ones, and especially the Latin. It may be thought that this subject has been too much dwelt upon, considering the Gunns to have long been but a secondary sept of Sutherlandshire; but, in reality, the question has a general bearing. Such native stories as that of “Guin the Dane” cannot stand, in our eyes, against the more common-sense view of the subject, although these stories may be found in manuscripts two or three hundred years old. One word of one able and educated historian is generally of far greater worth than hundreds of merely traditional tales recorded by men unknown, and men for the most part plainly unqualified for the task of repeating even hearsays of hearsays correctly and intelligibly. Every person of ordinary sense must have noticed, besides, how inconsistent is the conduct commonly of those who love to refer to old MSS. They will often laugh loudly when pointing to witch-stories, appearances of the devil, and so forth; and yet in the next sentence will they gravely accept the reporters of these as authorities on ancient genealogical and historical questions of moment, though the same blinded ignorance must have actuated the writers on the one point as well as the others, and though sound and really credible annalists may have told a very different tale.
The Gunns are represented as living mainly, as far as they were a separate sept, to the north of Dunrobin Castle, which stands on the eastern coast of Sutherlandshire. They had chieftains of their own name, though these might hold a second place in respect of the Sutherland earls; and they had a castle of their own, called Halbury. Several traditions respecting the Gunns are current in their native district. The following is curious, if it were but from the names . The “Keiths” mentioned are plainly the men of Kaithness merely; and the word “crowner” (if we are to interpret the Gaelic word chruner as crowner) seems to imply merely the judicial agent or representative of the superior lords of the country.
“Towards the end of the fifteenth century the chief of the Clan Gun (or Gunn here adopted as the best form of the name) was George Gunn, who lived in feudal dignity in his then impregnable castle of Halbury; but he was better known as Crowner Gunn, or as he was called by the Highlanders, “N’m Braistach-more,” from a great brooch which he wore as the badge or cognisance of his office of crowner He had a deadly feud with the chief of the Keiths; and having met in St Tyre's chapel for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation, but without success, they were solemnly agreed to decide their quarrel, if they could not do so amicably on a future day, by equal combat between twelve sons or relatives of each chieftain. The crowner and the leader of the Keiths approached each other in full armour; but it was soon discovered by the Gunns that there were two riders on every horse in the party of the Keiths, and consequently the latter party had twenty-four men opposed to the twelve followers of the crowner. This vile stratagem instantly revealed to the Gunns that their destruction, by unfair means, was determined upon. They scorned, notwithstanding the great odds against them, to retreat before their enemies the Keiths; and fought most desperately, but could not withstand the great odds that opposed them. After a long-continued struggle, the survivors on both sides were so much exhausted that the combat was mutually dropped - the Keiths being so far the victors as to leave the field with their banner displayed, and to be able to carry with them their slain companions; while in the ranks of the Gunns, the crowner and seven of his party were killed, and the remaining five were all severely wounded. The Keiths proceeded to Dilred Castle in Strathmore, then occupied by Sutherland of Dilred, where they were hospitably entertained. The five surviving Gunns, who were all sons of the crowner, also retired, but tarried at another stream, since then called Alt Torquil after Torquil Gunn, one of the survivors, who there dressed the wounds of his brothers. Towards evening Henry-beg, the youngest of the surviving brothers of the Gunns, proposed that they should follow the Keiths and endeavour to obtain revenge, even by stratagem such as the Keiths had recourse to. They arrived at Dilred Castle soon after nightfall. On approaching the castle, its wooden windows or shutters were found open, and around a large fire in the lowest apartment the survivors of the Keithe were quaffing bumpers of ale; and Henry, who went close to one of the windows, heard them narrate, with boisterous delight, the losses sustained by the Gunns. The chief of the Keiths, not apprehensive of any danger, accidentally approached the window where Henry stood, and the latter then bent his bow, and in another instant his arrow pierced the chieftain's heart; Henry at the same time boldly accompanying the deadly flight of his arrow with the exclamation (afterwards used in the North Highlands as a proverb) of “The Gunn’s compliments to Keith.” The old chief dropped down dead; a panic seized the other Keiths; and the three Gunns, having darted forward to the door of the cattle, slew some of the first persons who ventured out by it; but finding that they could not retain their position long, Henry and his two brothers retired silently under cover of the darkness of the night, and hurried back to the assistance of the other brothers, who had been unable to accompany them.”
Other stories are told of the Gunns, but their history in old days, as observed, is chiefly mixed up with the general annals of the Sutherland and Caithness tribes. In the “Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland” written up to 1630 by Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstone, and continued to 1651 by another party, several notices of the Clan Gunn occur incidentally. At a skirmish which took place in A.D. 1517 “William Mackames-Wick-Chruner (the name being plainly the same as “Crowner” just noticed) cheeff of the Clan Gunn in Southerland” was present against the Mackys or Mackays and gave them a signal defeat, two or three hundred men being slain on the unsuccessful side. The exact words of Sir R. Gordon writing not very long afterwards, are – “Their wer two hundred of the Strathnaver men slain, theirtie two of the Seill (Siol) Faill and fyfteen of the Seill-Thomas. The commander of the vanquished in this affair is called “Neill-Mackean-Mack-Angus” and his brother is styled John Moir-Mackean from whom “descended a race of people called the Slaight-Ean-Voir,” which means the race of John the Great. The whole of this extract proves accuracy in Gaelic nomenclature to be a point utterly unattainable. Indeed, this battle with the “Mackys” may only be a version of the fight with the Keiths. The name of Keith (odd as it may seem) is easily changed into Mac-Kays or Mac-Kaiths. The common source of the people is further made obvious in reality.
Sir Robert Gordon proceeds to say that “William Mackames (cheiftane of the Clangun), heer mentioned, was called Cattigh. He wes borne and bred in Southerland. From him are descended the Clangun that dwell at this day in Strathully. They have alwyse since that tyme had the lands of Killeirnan for ther service, from the Earles of Southerland, unto whom they have ever been both trusty and faithfull.”
It is plain, from these and other incidents, that the people of Sutherland Caithness and Moray, were always named from their localities when viewed en masse, and from their immediate sires when spoken of specially, having no baptismal registrations. The Sutherland men are spoken of always as fighting with southern parties of the name of “John-Roy-Moray,” and such like; or else they fought with Mackians or Mackys on their northern borders. Mackames (which means Macjames or Machamish) seems to be the oldest Gaelic sept name of the Gunns. The point is not of peculiar moment, the conclusion being clear that they are true Celtic Highlanders.
At the close of the sixteenth century, there seem indeed to have occurred bloody feuds betwixt the Sutherland and Caithness men, or, in other words, betwixt the Gunns and a branch of the Mackays. Sir Robert Gordon says, that the horrible encounters, the bloodshed, the spoiling, together with “their asperous names,” prevent him from giving details. The Clan Gunn appear to have come by the worst at times between the Caithness and Sutherland earls. At a meeting of the two (says Sir Robert Gordon) “it was concluded amongst them that some of the Clangun should be made away;” and the poor Clan Gunn seemed destined to destruction. The business ended in that final separation of the Gunns from the Mackays and Sinclairs, to whom they had been before attached, which has been mentioned. Sir R Gordon says on the subject of the tribe; -" The Clangun are a race of people dwelling within the diocese of Catteness and are divyded among the thrie countries of Southerlnnd Catteness and Strathnaver. They are verie courageous, rather desperat than valiant.” They came at last from under the power of the Mackays and Sinclairs, as said, and such of the tribe as have still dwelt in Southerland have ever been faithful to their masters, the earles of Southerland. Their “commander and chieftane is called Mack-wick-Kames, and remaineth alwyse in Killiernan in Strathully, wher he hath some landes and possessions from the earles of Southerland, as a fee for his service.” Alluding to his own time, the chronicler adds and interpolates the remark, that “John Robson (Mackames) chiftain of the Clangun in Catteness, did now of late, the yeir of God 1618, mak his refuge of Southerland, having fallen out with the Earle of Catteness and Мackу; so that this whole surname doth for the present depend altogether upon the house of Southerland.”
It was in the year 1586 that the Guuns were pursued both by the men of Caithness and Sutherland. Almost by chance they fought the former and beat them. This proved the critical event in the fortunes of the Gunn family. At first, indeed, both the Caithness and Sutherland earls turned their powers against the sept, and took captive the next chief George (Mack-ean Mack-rob) Gunn after a skirmish in which he fought most stoutly, and being vanquished, threw himself into a lake, “sore-wounded,” to make a last struggle for life and liberty. After being liberated, as it is said, he attached himself to the party to whom he deemed himself most deeply indebted, the Earl of Sutherland; and the clan and family became fixed adherents, as related, of that noble house. It was not until the year 1619, however, that they were formally dispossessed of all their lands held under the Caithness family, and also of their holdings under the Mackays; whereupon the whole “retired themselves with their families, into Sutherland.” Alexander (Davidson or) Gunn and his race were placed by Sir Robert Gordon in Strathully. Some small portions of the old Caithness possessions, however, were afterwards recovered.
It is clear, from this whole and rather confused story, that the Gunns had been a branch of the purest aborigines of the north. The Sinclairs and such like baronial incomers might gain the upper hand as rulers through regal favours and other causes; but they could not materially change the breed of the people.
It is remarkable enough, that the admitted head of this genuine tribe of the indigenous Gael of northern Scotland, George Gunn Esq., of Sutherlandshire, holds at this hour nearly the same position, relatively to the main lords of the soil, that the before-mentioned crowner, or justiciary of the same family, seems to have held two or three centuries since. The present chief of the Clan Gunn is a gentleman alike estimated by the Sutherland house, and by the numerous body of people of whom (under them) he takes a portion of charge.
Being pages 170-173.
The argument presented by Smibert is far more logical than the Clan Gunn Norse / Orkney / Viking story; the Gunns are much better viewed as Picto-Celtic inhabitants of northern Scotland. A non-kindred, regional 'tribe', if you like.
PART TWO
'The name Caithness is derived primarily from a tribal rather than a place name and appears to have been given to the indigenous people in question, 'the Cats' by their Celtic-speaking neighbours. (Ref: Professor Bill Nicoliasen in, Baldwin, John. R. ed. (1982) Caithness - A Cultural Crossroads. Edinburgh: Scottish Society for Northern Studies).
Given Cats was primarily a tribal name it adds support to the idea that Gunn could also be a tribal name (as suggested by Smibert) due to the Gunn proximity to Caithness.
And further - 'The country north of the Oykell was in Gaelic named 'Cataobh' which may be connected with 'Catti,' Ptolemy's name for the inhabitants in the second century.'
This idea is important; the name Caithness is based on a pre Celtic - and pre-Norse - name for the inhabitants of the Caithness area. This adds to the possibility that the people next door to this Caithness tribe could easily also have a name based on a pre-Celtic and pre-Norse - name.
PART THREE - Caithness, Clan Chattan and Clan Gunn origin
With respect to the aboriginal inhabitants of Caithness, little or nothing certain is known. The earliest of whom there remain any traces were the Cattaich or Catti a Celtic sept .... It may be worthy of remark that Cattaich (the Catti) and catanich, those of the Clan Chattan, have the same root...
So not merely were the people of Caithness 'holders' of a tribal name it now seems that Clan Chattan's roots were possibly based on this Caithness tribe. It is said that
The clan does not follow the ordinary pattern of other Scottish clans, in that it was a community or confederation of clans whose chiefs were the descendants of the original ancestors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattan_Confederation
So Clan Chattan is an example of a Clan which may have descended from the earliest inhabitants of Caithness. If it's possible for one Caithness Clan why should not the Clan Gunn be similarly based? It stretches belief to assume that all Clans descend from someone famous; surely we are past the 19th century ' great man in history' idea...
PART FOUR - On Gunns as Campbells or Campbells as Gunns
‘Campbells – In Gaelic they are called Clan Guin...’
Page V of the Appendix, Col. David Stewart, Sketches of the Highlanders of Scotland Volume 2. The idea is also picked up in Scottish Studies, Volumes 17-19, page 11.
So a Gunn / Campbell link and I have found it from one other source which says 'Duncan Forbes of Glenco refers to the Campbells as 'Clan Guin'.
The below adds support for the idea;
In traditional genealogies of the Clan Campbell, its origins are placed amongst the ancient Britons of Strathclyde.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Campbell and
'the paternal ancestry ... is apparently from the Britonic celts of Strathclyde'
So Campbells seem to come from a tribal group; just like Smibert argued for Gunns...
and if you look at The New Statistical Account of Scotland Volume 4, page 1834
Page 95 -
The principal clans in the parish are, those of M'Kay, Sutherland, Campbell, Morrison and Gunn; the two former generally distinguished by fair hair hair and blue eyes, - the Campbells and Gunn, by dark eyes and dark complexion.
So it's not the Gunns who have the Scandinavian complexion. So it's a further suggestion that the Gunns do not have such ancestry.
PART FIVE - Calidonii and Caledonia / Calidonia
It is useful to consider the Roman origins for Caledonia / Calidonia / Caledonii.
Ptolemy locates a specific tribe of this name (Calidonii) .... they are specifically a confederation of tribes occupying northern Scotland (page 291)
Calidonia ... applies .... to the ethnic and personal names ... The regional name is doubtless a Roman creation ... a sort of abstraction from the ethnic Calidonii who seem to be 'hard men, tough men' ... it can not be proved to be Celtic, and may therefore very possibly be pre-Celtic' (Page 289)
Being from A.L.F. Rivet and Colin Smith's The Place-names of Roman Britain
In other words ethnic Caledonii is derived from terms meaning 'hard, tough men' so it is quite logical that the Gunns - who are at the very least on the border with the Caledonii - have a name also based on being 'fierce'. The Caledonia name being derived from terms of behaviour (or how others view you) seems totally accepted so it makes sense for the similar Gunn origin to be totally accepted; the fanciful Orkney idea (when surnames were not even being passed down, with no proof of any connected history before Gunn Crowner - we don't even know coroner Gun's parents!) needs to be rejected as a 19th romantic invention.