 |
 |
On came the gale, impetuous and rude,
Howling in hollow gusts where Helen stood.
She gazed around her on the troubled scene --
There was a calm composure on her mien,
And on her lips a faint smile seemed to play,
A moment's space, and then it died away.
She raised her hands on high, and prayed to Heaven,
The conflict and tension that already existed between the Gunn's and the Keith's was about to escalate into a series of protracted feuds and battles that would last for many enerations to come. The Gunn's retaliated with a series of raids that were, for the most part, indecisive. But one year after Helen's death, in 1426, the two adversaries would meet at Tannach Moor near Wick. At Tannach Moor (Blar-Tannie) the Keith's enlisted the aid of a branch of the MacKay's who had previously feuded with the Gunns. The conflict is described in an MS. written during the reign of King James VI and is recounted here:
The Conflict of Blar-Tannie (Tannach Moor) About the year of God 1438 [1426], there fell some variance betwixt the Keiths and the Gunns of Caithness. The Keiths, mistrusting their own forces, sent to Angus Mackay of Strathnaver (the son of Neil Wasse), entreating him to come to their aid, whereunto he easily yielded; so Angus Mackay, accompanied with John Mor MacIan-Riabhaich, went into Caithness with a band of men, and invaded that country. Then did the Gunns of Caithness assemble in all haste, and met the Strathnaver men and the Keiths at a place in Caithness called Blair-tannie. There ensued a cruel fight, with slaughter on either side. In the end the Keiths [and their allies] had the victory, by means chiefly of John Mor MacIan-Riabhaich (an Assynt man), who was very famous in these countries for his manhood shown at this conflict. Two chieftains and leaders of the inhabitants of Caithness were slain, with divers [many] others. This Angus Mackay, here mentioned, was afterward burnt and killed in the Church of Tarbat, by a man of the surname of Ross, whom he had often molested with incursions and invasions.
About a decade later there is a story of a hugh Keith involved at the battle of Hallberry Castle, who allegedly captured several Gunns and "tore the eyes out of their sockets." The Norse ancestry might explain this curious event. The legend has it that the Keith's came back with a "hugh raven" on their shoulders (a devil?) that it did the deed to the eyes of the captured Gunns. The Norse raven is a symbol Woden (Odin) and was the raven-banner of not only many Viking, but of the old Orkney Earls (Jarls). Although this is an interesting footnote in the history it is likely nothing more than a metaphor for some cruelty or feud, and perhaps only a legend. Mark Rugg Gunn's "History of the Clan Gunn" offers some further insight into the curious battle involving the Raven and the Big Keith. After Tannach Moor, no specific date noted, the Battle of the Mannistanes took place about a half a mile from Halberry castle. At a place called Mannistanes Hill, a place that derives its name from the many standing stones in the area, was the site of the battle of the black raven (mentioned earlier). The raven probably represents the raven flag, which to people of Norse ancestry assures victory in battle. At Mammistanes the Keith had a champion of hugh size and strength known as ' Caidh Mor" or Big Keith. He is said to have wielded a large claymore and killed 4 or 5 of the Gunn's but was himself wounded by an injured Gunn. One of the wounded Gunn's managed to draw a knife (probably a dirk) and sliced Big Keith's leg tendon thus disabling him and taking him out of the battle. After this the Keith's seem to have lost heart and leave the battle. But Moncreiffe says the battle was won by the Keith's and M.R. Gunn says the Keith's fled. So perhaps it is best to look at this battle as a draw or indecisive. Regardless, it is said that Big Keith never again returned to the Gunn territory. It should be mentioned that the Standing stones around Mannistanes precedes the Gunn's and Keith's by many thousands of years and probably dates to the Neolithic period (see article on Neolithic Scotland). This battle seems to belong to tradition rather than historic fact. No date can be attributed to it and the outcome is different in two accounts. Nevertheless, there probably was some sort of skirmish between the two clans once again without any real conclusive results for either side. The tale of the removal of the eyes conjures up ancestral memories of the Gunn's Viking heritage and often-savage justice. According to Dr Anna Ritchie, there were two methods the Vikings employed to execute or savage enemies for the purpose of setting examples. One is the removal of an eye (or both) and the other was a terrible form of (usually political) execution known as the 'Blood Eagle". The Blood Eagle involved the execution of a prisoner of war (usually) by tying him to a stake, his back turned outwards. With a knife, they would cut two slits into victim's back and draw out or expose the lungs to the outside air. As he died, his lungs were said to have fluttered in the wind like the wings of an eagle - thus, the Blood Eagle. But that practise seems to have died out many years before the feuds of the Gunns and Keiths.
Battle of Dirlot
In 1464, the two clans fought again at the Battle of Dirlot, resulting in massive casualties on both sides, the less numerous Gunns losing the battle, but not before their archers inflicted heavy losses on the Keiths. The Gunns were noted as excellent archers by all accounts, and used the short bow (not the long bow) to offset their inferior numbers. They were also known to be great swordsmen wielding great broadswords and most likely claymores. Undoubtedly, some of this comes from their war-like, Viking heritage. So many Gunn's and Keith's had perished in the two major conflicts that followed the abduction of Helen, that farms were going untended and fallow. It seems there were not enough men to harvest adequate food. So it was decided (probably by agreement of George Gunn, The Crowner and his rival George Keith, Chief of the Keiths), to settle the whole matter in one equal meeting between the two clans with the two clan Chiefs in attendance. It isn't known whether or not this was a meeting of reconciliation gone sour, or a 'battle of champions' of equal numbers of men. It was agreed that 12 horsemen from each clan would meet at an arranged place, and if they could not settle their differences, they would resolve it with a battle of champions. The Gunns, including George and many of his sons were to meet the Keiths outside the Chapel of St. Tears. [Note: The spelling on the chapel varies from book to book. It has been spelt Tears, Tyer, Tayre, etc. For the purposes of this account I'm using the most common spelling - Tears.]
Battle of Allt Nan Gamhna - also known as St. Tears
There are over four variations on this feud. But by far the most common is the one I've chosen to recount here. The Gaelic accounts of this battle is know and the battle of Altnagown or "Allt Nan Gamhna" which means 'brook of the year-old calves. It has become better known by the nearby chapel of St. Tears, in more modern times, as the Battle of St. Tears. The date of this battle varies but most accounts give the year as 1478 whilst another, 1464. The Gunn's, led by their Chief, George Gunn "The Crowner", arrived first and went into the chapel to pray. The Keith's arrived slowly, and seeing the horses tied up outside the chapel, decided on an ambush. But using the words of author Sir Charles MacKinnon of Dunakin, "the Keith's played a dirty trick mounting two men on each horse.", giving them a 2 to 1 advantage over the Gunns. Led by their chief, George Keith of Ackergill and his 23 men, fell upon the Gunns inside the chapel and a great and confused battle ensued. Claymore, dirks, swords and targes banged out a terrible sound of carnage as the battle spread from the chapel to the outside and all around. Considering they were so deviously outnumbered, the Gunns fought bravely and killed many of the treacherous Keiths, before the sheer force of numbers overwhelmed them. The Gunns were forced to make a retreat, but seven (some accounts say 8 or more) of the Gunn's lay dead as well as many Keiths, including the Gunn Chief, George the Crowner. Four of his sons were also killed and the Crowner's great silver brooch (badge of office) was stolen by the Keiths. Whilst the brooch and arms were stolen, the misunderstanding that this is why the Gunn's do not currently have a chief is mistaken. But that's another story. The remaining four or five Gunns found safe cover and hid in a glen near a stream in upper Strathnaver. There, they dressed their numerous wounds and burned with anger and revenge. At this point the story becomes unclear as there are two very different versions of what occurred next - although the outcome of both is the same.
Revenge
One version claims one of the Crowner's surviving sons, who was less wounded than the others, silently followed the Keith's on their to castle Dirlot. One account says it was John Gunn but most other accounts, (including that of Rev. Donald Sage) agree it was one Henry Gunn, one of the sons of the slain Crowner, who followed the Keith's to Ackergill castle. Henry took with him several Gunns and set up an ambush outside Dirlot castle. Henry climbed up a steep and winding hill that eventually put him on a level with a window of Castle Dirlot, where he could see the Keith's celebrating inside. In this account, which cannot be verified but occurs in several tomes, Henry watched the Keith's celebrating their victory at St. Tears by quaffing ale and rejoicing. Henry took aim with his bow and shot an arrow through the open window, striking George, the Chief of the Keith's, in the neck, thus killing him. After this he is said to have shouted:
"A Gunn's compliment to a Keith", although another Gaelic translation is, "A Gunn's blessing to a Keith!" The remaining Keith's ran towards to door to seek out the shooter, but were ambushed one by one by Gunn's hiding outside the door. It is said that more Keith's were killed here at Dirlot castle than the Gunn's that died at St. Tears. According to this account, Henry was able to secure his father's sword, Chain-mail armour and Badge of office from the Keith's, but a dispute between Henry and his oldest brother James had a dispute over ownership of these items, with James as the elder winning out, resulting in Henry leaving the family, vowing that none of his descendants will bear the name Gunn again. It is said he moved out of the area and became estranged from the Gunn's. But this cannot be verified and indeed has the sound of a legend. An Alexander Gunn of Watten, tells us that the Crowner's Brooch (assumed lost) was a gift from the King of Scotland to the Crowner for his office, and that it was found during the last century in Kildonan and passed into the possession of MacLeod of Cadbell. But this is the last we hear of it and there is no way to confirm it. Its whereabouts are unknown and unlikely to be found. So there is a story of revenge in the tale where Henry takes matters into his hands the night of the battle of St. Tears outside Dirlot (recounted above). But there is another of revenge as well. In this account, which appears to be verified by both Robert Gordon's writings and the Fraser Chronicles, a grandson of the slain George Gunn, the Crowner, William MacKames (also spelled William MacHamish), waited for an occasion to take revenge of the son of the Keith Chief, (also named George Keith of Ackergill), his son Alexander and 10 Keith retainers. It was apparently an ambush at Drummoy in Sutherland as they were travelling from Inverugie to Caithness. William MacKames and his fellow Gunns, ambushed with bow and sword, the Keith Chief (George Keith of Ackergill), his son and 10 men - killing them all. The Keith's, expecting death, asked for time for prayers but were refused. William is reputed to have said, "Your father interrupted my grandfather at prayer in God's house (St. Tears) and that he (William) would grant them no time for such devotion since they denied it to his grandfather's men. All of them were slain by the Gunns. Some writers of the Battle of St. Tears, deny that an armed conflict amongst 36 men (12 Gunns and 24 Keiths) could have taken place in the relatively small chapel. However, it should be noted that this is only where the battle started and probably was taking place out-of-doors as well as in. In fact, according to Robert Gordon's accounts (160 years after the events) and several others including the Fraser Chronicles, bloodstains could be seen on the walls of the chapel for many years after the conflict. So it seems revenge was indeed taken on the Keiths in one fashion or another. Interestingly, according to Mark Rugg Gunn, the Castle Dirlot was occupied by one Alexander Sutherland a relative of the Dunrobin family. It was said that it was he who welcomed the Keith's so cordially after the battle with the Gunns at the Chapel of St. Tears. This would explain why the Keith's went to Dirlot after the battle rather than to their Castle at Ackergill. As an interesting side note, Alexander Sutherland, the cordial host, had himself killed a MacKay a year earlier, Alexander Dunbar of Cumnock in a quarrel, and was later apprehended by Dunbar's uncle, MacKay of Strathnaver. Mackay of Strathnaver used nearly as devious a strategy as did the Keiths at St. Tears to apprehend Sutherland. Mackay with ten followers on a 'friendly' visit where they were given a feast with Alexander Sutherland and twenty of his men. The wily MacKay of Strathnaver, arranged for each of his ten men to sit in between every two of the Sutherland men. At a given signal, the MacKay's stood drawing their dirks and quickly stabbing to their right and then their left, killed or wounded all of the Sutherland men and captured Alexander Sutherland taking him as prisoner to Edinburgh and then to Stirling where he was executed in 1499. In reward for this deed, James IV of Scotland gave the Castle Dirlot and some of Sutherland's estate to the MacKays, which was very considerable. In attendance of the MacKay men who dispatched the Sutherland's were three Gunns. But battle for the Gunn's was not over. In the next installment of "A Brief History of Clan Gunn", we shall look at the battle of Torran Dubh and the son's of the Crowner. Coming 2004. Author: Robert Gunn And 10 secondary sources
That all her youthfull sins might be forgiven,
And this, a greater than them all combined,
The last sad crime of an unhappy mind;
Then from the top she sprang in frantic woe,
And instant fell a lifeless corpse below.
translations and corrections in brackets.
Historian, MA, hwa
©All Rights Reserved October 2002, ongoing, Robert M. Gunn©" )
Sources:
The Highland Clans, Moncreiffe of that Ilk, D Hicks
Scottish Highlanders, MacKinnon of Dunakin
History of Clan Gunn, Mark Rugg Gunn
Kith and Kin
Scottish Clans and Tartans, Bain
Scottish Surnames and families, Whyte
Clan Gunn history, NA MacCorkill
Feuds of the Clans, MacGregor
Scottish Clans and Tartans, R.R. MacIan
Scottish Clans, Innes of Learney
The Vikings in Scotland, Dr F. Ritchie
The Orkeyinga Sagas
The Vikings, Bronstead
Visit site of R.M. Gunn. EXCELLENT HISTORY at his Personal site, & also at SCOTWEB, EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND, where he is history editor, and chief writer.
Thank you Robert......
Sconemac
Nancy MacCorkill, F.S.A. Scot USA
"©All Rights Reserved March 1997 ongoing, N. MacCorkill©"
©Copy Protected:© "Not to be reproduced in any form of media, or communication.
Nor storage nor retrieval situations. Not public domain.©"
RETURN TO MAIN ENTER BOOK MENU
 |
 |
|
Page designed and written by
Dreamspinner©,
Webmaster, Nancy MacCorkill