|
|
A Brief History of the
Gunn Clan |
|
|
|
|
ORIGINS |
|
|
It's important
to remember that preserved written records date only from the 13th
and 14th Centuries, so research before then is generally
speculative.
There are three
origins of the Gunn clan currently proposed;
1.
Norse descent (possibly being mixed with Northern Pictish tribes),
originally from one Gunni (sometimes called Guin), who was the second son
of Olav the Black, the Norwegian King of Man and the Isles, who died in
1237.
2.
Also of Norse descent, but from Guin (Gunni) a century earlier, who
was the son of Olav of Gairsay (a different Olav) who lived in Orkney.
3.
Most recently, in “The History of Clan Gunn", author Mark Rugg
Gunn, suggests descent from Gunni, grandson of the Viking adventurer Svein
Asliefarsson, sometimes known as ‘The Pirate of Freswick’, who was made
famous in the Orkneyinga Saga.
Sadly, these
are all hard to refute. Information from the Sagas is particularly
subjective and open to re-interpretation. Dr Anna Ritchie, writing for
Historic Scotland in her book "The Vikings in Scotland", says:
“The major
historical source for the Norse Earldom of Orkney, Caithness, Shetland and
the Western Isles lies in the Icelandic Sagas - primarily the Orkneyinga
saga, but also Landnamabok, Egil's saga, Magnus' saga, and others. But
the historical value of these sagas varies and is not always easy to
define. At best they convey an impression of political life in the 11th
and 12th centuries, at worst they may be misleading in failing
to distinguish anachronistic oral tradition and contemporary society.”
The account
in the Orkneyinga saga of Svein Asleifarsson's Viking exploits in the
mid-12th century is a good example:
“In the spring
he had more than enough to occupy him, with a great deal of seed to sow
which he saw to himself. Then when that job was done, he would go off
plundering in the Hebrides and in Ireland in what he called his
"spring-trip", then back home just after midsummer, where he stayed until
the fields had been reaped and the grain was safely in. After that he
would go off raiding again and never come back until the first month of
winter was ended. This he used to call his ‘autumn-trip’.” - Orkneyinga
Sagas
This is a
fascinating account of the Viking lifestyle, but it occurs in a time when
we know that Viking raiding was no longer a normal part of Viking life.
Unless the authors of the saga are confusing the dates or simply making an
allegory of the earlier Viking period, it is anachronistic. Therefore, one
must use caution when taking the sagas as historical texts rather than as
narrative political histories.
According to
Moncreiffe, the Clan Gunn was Gunn of Kilearnan whose Gaelic title was
'Mac Sheumais Chataich'. The family took their name from their Norse
Orcadian name Gunni, whose wife Ragnhild inherited great estates on the
Scottish mainland in Caithness (Katanes) and Sutherland (Sundrlund -
meaning "south land"). Moncreiffe goes on to list a genealogy which, more
or less, agrees with that of Mark Gunn. They come to the conclusion that
the clan Gunn descended from Gunni, himself a descendant of Svein
Asliefarsson, the "hero" of the Orkeyinga Sagas. Mark Gunn’s evidence
comes, in part, from the old documents of various ministers some of which
is missing or written by more than one person. Whoever the correct
progenitor was, one fact remains certain: the Gunns are of Norse Viking
descent and the name-father of the clan was one Gunni.
The clan’s
early emblem was the galley (longship), the boat which symbolised their
ancestral (Norse) mother-goddess Freya. Whatever the real origins of
Gunni, we do know he existed, and he is the name-father of the clan and
must have been a powerful man in Caithness.
From the
various books on the clan, one thing seems clear: clan Gunn was a war-like
clan and had constant feuds with their neighbours – even though they were
generally outnumbered. It has even been suggested by some historians,
that the name Gunn actually comes from the Norse word 'gunnr' meaning war
– certainly that description fits. Sir Charles MacKinnon describes the
Gunn’s as "survivors" and RR MacIan described the Gunn’s as the "MacGregor's
of the North".
The clan’s
lands in the Orkneys, Caithness and parts of Sutherland, put them in close
proximity, especially in later centuries, to larger clans such as the
Sinclairs (who were granted land in the North in the 15th
century), the Sutherlands, the MacKays and later still the Keiths. It
isn't surprising that they felt threatened by the new arrivals who also
outnumbered them. The result was conflict and clan warfare. The Gunn’s
reputation for being aggressive and war-like can be directly attributed to
their geographical situation - hemmed in by sometimes - hostile
neighbours.
|
|
The Septs of the Gunn Clan |
|
|
Most of the
Sept names of the clan come from the sons of its most famous Chief, George
Gunn, who held the title of ‘Crowner’ of Caithness, around 1464. The
Crowner was an office of Warden or Steward that led to the modern-day role
of ‘coroner’. George was known to wear the large silver badge of that
office to fasten his plaid. This is why he was nicknamed "Am Braisteach
Mor" – Gaelic for ‘the great broached one’.
The Gunn lands
in the Highland tracts of Caithness, and especially a long stretch of
territory called "Gleann na Guineach" or Gunn's Glen in Kildonan, were
close to the border with Sutherland around the upper stretches of the
Helmsdale river. This was a precarious place, being between the
territories of the rival Earls of Caithness (Sinclair) and Sutherland. It
is said that George Gunn occupied the tower of Dirlot by force in 1464. He
also had another castle at Hallburg or Halberry Castle in Mid Clyth, just
north of Lybster. He is reputed to have held court in his castle at Clyth
in great splendour. The castle stood on a promontory, jutting out to sea,
with a large channel dug into the rock for a drawbridge.
These were
the days when the Gunns only had a few neighbours and proudly held almost
all of the area. It was before the arrival of the clans Sinclair
(Norman), Keith (Celtic-Teutonic-Norman) and Sutherland
(Celtic-Norse-Flemish). Only the MacKays had occupied parts of these
areas before the Gunns. Gunn predates both the Earls of Caithness and
Sutherland. Most of the incomers got their lands through grants by the
Scottish kings or by marriage. Before this the Gunns held them by ‘fire
and sword’. There is still a place called ‘The Crouner's Garden’ at
Strath farm, near Watten. The Gunn family burial ground remained for a
long time in St. Magnus Chapel at Spittal, close to Dirlot Castle.
|
|
Northern Conflict |
|
|
Since 1426, the
Gunns had been in armed conflict with the Keiths of Ackergill. (They had
also feuded with the MacKays and Sutherlands, but it was the Keiths with
whom they had most trouble.) A Celtic branch of the Chattan
confederation, the Keiths were also of Teutonic and Norman origin. They
inherited land through a Cheyne heiress, and there was an important rival
land-claim in Caithness from a remote ancestor John, who was Jarl of
Orkney. It is alleged that Gunni's (the name-father of clan Gunn) son,
Snaekoll, had murdered the Jarl in 1231. This may have contributed to the
angst between the two clans.
The first
recorded feud is known as the ‘Battle of Tannach Moor’ (Blar-Tannie) near
Wick. The history, or legend, that led to this battle is one of the most
dramatic and tragic events in the Clan's long history of feuds. It began
in Braemore early in the 15th century. Lachlan Gunn of Braemore had an
only daughter named Helen, who was so attractive that she was known as
"the Beauty of Braemore". She was soon to marry her cousin, Alexander
Gunn, whom she'd known since childhood, but fate intervened before the
marriage could take place.
The harp that
has rung with the strains of the fight,
Shall to beauty and love be devoted tonight;
For the maiden is wed that we all did adore --
The pride of our valley, the flower of Braemore.
Tho' here we
are all full of joy and delight,
There are hearts in the glen that are breaking tonight,
And many a sigh from the sad bosom wrung,
Is heaving for Helen, the charming and young.
The Keith in
the lowlands, that dastardly hoard,
For the loss of the maiden may brandish his sword;
But we mind not his threats - let him come to Braemore,
And we will give him a taste of the Highland Claymore!
May the
choicest of blessings descend from above,
On the gallant young man and his dear lady love;
And long may they flourish in beauty and pride,
Like the ash and the birch on you green mountain side.
Written by a Mr
Calder of Caithness
Dugald Keith, Factor of the district had other plans. Legend says he first
glimpsed Helen one day when he was passing through Braemore, and he was
immediately smitten by her beauty and charm. He made some advances to
Helen, which she rejected. Some say these were crude and Helen was
indignant about them, but spurned and angered by her rejection he planned
to kidnap her. On the night before her wedding to Alexander, the Gunns
gathered in Braemore for a celebration and feast. Dugald Keith and his
men rode in, taking everyone by surprise, and he abducted Helen and
slaughtered several Gunns who tried to stop him. Her lover, Alexander, was
one of those killed.
Dugald Keith
kept Helen a virtual prisoner in Ackergill Castle. What actually happened
to Helen during her imprisonment isn't really known, but the outcome is.
Knowing there was no escape and determined not to give herself to Dugald,
she devised a plan to get to the top of the castle tower. One day, she
asked her guard if she could go to the tower to look on her 'new' land.
Charmed by her beauty, he agreed, thinking she could not escape. But
rather than be the victim of Dugald Keith, Helen committed suicide by
throwing herself from the tower.
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,
That all her youthful 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.
The conflict
and tension that already existed between the Gunn’s and the Keith’s
escalated into a series of feuds and battles that lasted for many
generations.
The Gunns
retaliated with a series of raids, but it wasn’t until a year after
Helen's death, in 1426, that the two adversaries met at Tannach Moor
(known in Gaelic as Blair Tannie) near Wick. The Keiths enlisted
the aid of a branch of the MacKays who had already feuded with the Gunns.
The conflict is described in a manuscript written in the reign of King
James VI.
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 very large Keith involved in a battle at
Hallberry Castle, who allegedly captured several Gunns and "tore the eyes
out of their sockets". Norse ancestry might explain this strange
description. Legend has it that the Keiths came back with a ‘huge raven’
on their shoulders (probably a devil) and that it was this that attacked
the eyes of the captured Gunns. The Norse raven is a symbol Woden (Odin)
and was the raven-banner of not only many Vikings, but also of the old
Orkney Earls (or Jarls).
Mark Gunn's
‘History of the Clan Gunn’ adds more detail to this curious battle
involving the Raven and the large Keith. Some time after Tannach Moor,
the Battle of the Mannistanes took place about half a mile from Halberry
Castle. Mannistanes Hill takes its name from standing stones in the area,
and was the site of the battle of the black raven. The raven probably
represents the raven flag, which in Norse mythology assures victory in
battle. At Mammistanes, the Keiths had a champion of huge size and
strength, known as ‘Caidh Mor’ or Big Keith. He was said to wield a large
claymore and killed 4 or 5 of the Gunns but was himself wounded by an
injured Gunn. One of the wounded Gunns managed to draw a knife (probably
a dirk) and sliced Big Keith's leg tendon, disabling him and so removed
him from the battle. As a result, the Keiths lost heart and left the
battle. (Moncreiffe has a different version saying that the battle was
won by the Keith's.) Regardless, it is said that Big Keith never again
returned to Gunn land. This battle is probably legendary rather than
historic fact as no date can be attributed to it and the outcome was
different in the two accounts. Nevertheless, there probably was some sort
of clash between the two clans once again without any real conclusive
results for either side.
According to
Anna Ritchie, there were two methods the Vikings used to execute or savage
enemies to set an example. One was the removal of an eye (or both) and
the other was a form of execution (usually for political reasons) known as
the ‘Blood Eagle’. The Blood Eagle involved the execution of a prisoner of
war 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. This practise
almost certainly died out many years before the feuds of the Gunns and
Keiths.
|
|
THE Battle of Dirlot |
|
|
In 1464, the
two clans fought again at the Battle of Dirlot, with massive casualties on
both sides, the less numerous Gunns lost the battle, but not before their
archers inflicted heavy losses on the Keiths. The Gunns were noted as
excellent archers, using the short bow (rather than the long bow) to
offset their inferior numbers. They were also known to be great swordsmen
wielding large broadswords and probably claymores. |
|
The Battle of St Tears (Allt Nan Gamhna) |
|
|
So many Gunns
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 weren’t enough men to harvest enough 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 Chiefs in attendance. It isn't
known whether this was a meeting of reconciliation that went sour, or a
'battle of champions' of equal numbers of men. Twelve horsemen from each
clan were to meet at an arranged place and, if they couldn’t 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 (referred to in different accounts as Tears, Tyer, and
Tayre]. There are several differing versions of this feud.
Gaelic accounts
refer to the battle of Altnagown or ‘Allt Nan Gamhna’, meaning ‘brook of
the year-old calves’. It is better known, after the nearby chapel, as the
Battle of St Tears. The date given varies, but generally say either 1478
or 1464.
The Gunns,
led by George "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 Sir Charles MacKinnon of Dunakin
says; "the Keith's played a dirty trick mounting two men on each horse".
This gave them a 2-to-1 advantage over the Gunns. Led by their chief,
George Keith of Ackergill and his 23 men, they fell upon the Gunns inside
the chapel and a great and confused battle ensued.
Considering
they were so outnumbered, the Gunns fought hard and killed many of the
Keiths, before the sheer force of numbers overwhelmed them. The Gunns were
forced to retreat, but 7 or more lay dead, including George the Crowner.
Four of his sons were killed and the Crowner's great silver brooch (badge
of office) was stolen by the Keiths.
(The theft,
of the brooch and arms, has mistakenly been used to explain why the Gunns
do not currently have a chief.)
The
remaining four or five Gunns found safe cover and hid in a glen near a
stream in upper Strathnaver while dressing their wounds. The story now
becomes unclear as there are two very different versions of what happened
next - although the outcome is the same.
One version
suggests that one of the Crowner's surviving sons followed the Keiths to
Castle Dirlot. One says this was John Gunn, but most (including that of
Rev Donald Sage) agree it was Henry Gunn who led a small group to set up
an ambush outside the castle. Henry climbed up a steep and winding hill
that eventually put him on a level with a window through which he could
see the Keith's celebrating. Henry took aim with his bow and shot an
arrow through the open window, striking George, the Chief of the Keiths,
in the neck, killing him. After which he is said to have shouted in
Gaelic: “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 Gunns
hiding outside the door. It is said that more Keith's were killed here at
Dirlot Castle than the Gunns that died at St. Tears.
According to
this account, Henry was able to recover his father's sword, armour and
brooch of office. Henry and his eldest brother, James, subsequently
disputed ownership of these items, and when James won, Henry left the
family, vowing that none of his descendants woud bear the name Gunn again.
It is said he moved out of the area and became estranged but this can’t
be verified and also has the sound of a legend.
Alexander
Gunn of Watten, recently claimed that the Crowner's Brooch was found
during the last century in Kildonan and passed to MacLeod of Cadbell. But
there is no trace of it today.
But there is
another tale of revenge too. In this version, which appears to be
verified by both Robert Gordon and the Fraser Chronicles, a grandson of
the slain George Gunn, William MacKames (which is also spelt William
MacHamish), waited for an occasion to take revenge on the son of the Keith
Chief (who was also named George Keith of Ackergill), his son Alexander
and 10 Keith retainers. This was achieved in 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, killing all
the party. 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.
Some writers
have argued that an armed conflict among 36 men couldn’t have taken place
in the relatively small chapel. However, this is only where the battle
started and probably quickly spilled outside. 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.
According to
Mark Gunn, Dirlot Castle was occupied by Alexander Sutherland, a relative
of the Dunrobin family. It is said that it was he who welcomed the Keiths
after the battle 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.
Alexander
Sutherland 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 catch Sutherland. Mackay, with ten
followers, came on a 'friendly' visit where they were given a feast with
Alexander Sutherland and twenty of his men. MacKay of Strathnaver,
arranged for each of his men to sit between two of the Sutherland men. At
a given signal, the MacKays stood, drew their dirks and quickly stabbed to
their right and left killing or wounding all of the Sutherland men and
capturing Alexander Sutherland. They took him as prisoner to Edinburgh,
and then to Stirling, where he was executed in 1499. As a reward, James
IV of Scotland gave Dirlot Castle and some of Sutherland's estate to the
MacKays. Among the MacKay men who killed the Sutherlands were three Gunns.
|
|
LATER EVENTS |
|
|
This was not
the end of the bloodshed for the Gunns. The sons of the Crowner went on
to fight at the battle of Torran Dubh. |
|
THE
‘END’ OF THE CLAN SYSTEM |
|
|
Clans
have existed in many parts of the world, but it was in the Scottish
Highlands that the system developed most fully as a way of life. It ended
with the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie's Highlanders on the moors of
Culloden, near Inverness, on April 16th, 1746.
Following this defeat, Clans were abolished by law and for many years all
weapons were forbidden to the Highlanders, as were the tartans, dress,
symbols, music, and gatherings. Even the bagpipes were forbidden as they
were considered an instrument of war. At the same time the programme
known as the "clearances" was carried out to "clear the Highlanders from
the land to make it fit for the raising of sheep". It was this that was
largely responsible for the scattering of the Highlanders to the far
reaches of the world. |
|
A
RESURGENCE OF INTEREST |
|
|
When
the proscription of the Clans was lifted and King George IV toured
Scotland in the 1820's (he was the first monarch to visit Scotland in 175
years), he and his court did so in full
Highland regalia. Tartans blossomed
everywhere, the Clans were revitalized and Clan societies were organized
in an attempt to re-establish family ties.
The
first Gunn Clan Society was founded in 1821, but progressively declined
over the next 125 years. About 35 years ago, the Gunn Clan Society was
reactivated in Scotland. In 1969, the Gunn Clan Society was organized in
the
United States
with membership open to all Gunns resident in
North America.
In 1979 the Gunn Clan Society of Canada was organized. Undoubtedly, other
Gunn Clan societies will be organized in Australia and New Zealand and
possibly in South Africa. |
|
THE
LATEST ON THE CLAN CHIEFTAIN |
|
|
Former lorry driver claims clan title
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
« Previous
« Previous
Next »
Next »
View Gallery
Published Date: 23 August 2009
By Tom Peterkin
IT IS one of Scotland's northernmost clans, with a bloodthirsty reputation
that dates back centuries.
Descended from the Vikings, and with lands that once encompassed Orkney,
Caithness and Sutherland, Clan Gunn has survived into the 21st century
despite having no chief for more than 200 years.
But now a 41-year-old former lorry driver has stepped forward to claim his
right to be the new chieftain after years of dispute over who should be
head of the family.
The new claimant is William Murray Gunn, whose working class background
contrasts sharply with the public school education and titled parentage of
most of Scotland's chieftains. He is now in line to become the latest
chief after the recent death of his father William Sinclair Gunn, who
decided not to take up the title.
Genealogists claim Gunn senior's heritage can be traced directly back to
the previous chief, Morrison Gunn, who died in Gibraltar in 1785.
William Murray Gunn says he is now considering applying to the Lord Lyon
to become the first recognised clan chief since the death of Morrison
Gunn.
He said: "My dad was the direct line. The only thing that puts me off is
that I'm just working class and I'm used to being myself and doing my own
thing.
"But I'm semi-retired just now. Of course, it does excite me that I'm
descended from clan chiefs. It is hard to put into words. But I'm just an
average person.
"I mean, I was always happy being part of the family, but being a clan
chief never came into my thoughts. But when it was looking like I was, it
was exciting. You're afraid of it too, because I don't know what it
entails." He added: "I would like to take it and let the clan do what it
wants; that's the kind of person I am."
Gunn's elevation to the largely ceremonial position would end years of
argument about who is the rightful heir to the title, which used to come
with ownership of three northerly castles: Dirlot, Clyth and Halberry, the
15th-century stronghold.
Hugh Peskett, the Scottish editor of Burke's Peerage, said he has proved
that the line of descent should pass from Morrison Gunn to William Murray
Gunn's father.
William Sinclair Gunn, a plasterer from Wick, did not want the
chieftanship, but his death last year has left the door open for his son
to make a claim.
The clan claims descent from Sweyn Asleifsson, a warlike Norwegian known
as "the Ultimate Viking", and a succession of medieval leaders who
skirmished with warlike MacKays and Keiths in the north of Scotland.
The Gunns fought with the government against the Jacobites in the 1745
rebellion. But with the death 40 years later of Morrison Gunn, an army
officer who died childless, succession was thrown into doubt.
It was thought the chieftainship would fall to a first cousin, but the
only one was in the Dutch Army at the time. As he had sworn allegiance to
the Dutch Crown, he was disqualified.
When rival claims emerged in the 1990s, genealogists discovered that
William Murray Gunn's great, great, great, great grandfather Robert Gunn,
who was alive in the early 1800s, was a distant cousin of Morrison Gunn.
They also found that Morrison Gunn and Robert Gunn had a common great
grandfather, Donald Gunn, who lived between 1685 and 1709 and was clan
chief.
Peskett confirmed his research had revealed that William Murray Gunn's
father William Sinclair Gunn was therefore in line for the title. "There
is totally sound genealogy that WS Gunn is the rightful chief," Peskett
said.
While William Murray's father was still alive, however, the issue had been
complicated by a rival claim from a Michael J Gunn, a historian descended
from the same line.
Earlier this month, Iain Alexander Gunn held the clan gathering, annual
general meeting and dinner – along with clan presidents from North America
and Australia – at his Caithness home.
The 76-year-old commander said he would welcome a resolution. "We are in
limbo at the moment," he said. "I was appointed in 1972 until such time as
the chiefship was resolved and I'm still here. If they find a legitimate
chief, that's fine. The Lord Lyon is considering the questions that people
have raised." |
Gunni came to Caithness at the end of the
twelfth century when his wife, Ragnhild, inherited estates there from her
brother, Harald, Jarl of Orkney. His wife was descended from St Ragnvald,
founder of the great cathedral of St Magnus at Kirkwall. Gunni, whose name
itself meant ‘war’, was descended from Viking adventurers. His grandfather,
Sweyn, had been killed in 1171 on a raid in Dublin. The first chief of Clan Gunn
to appear definitively in records was George Gunn, who was crouner, or coroner,
of Caithness in the fifteenth century. The proper Celtic patronymic of the Gunn
chiefs was ‘MacSheumais Chataich’, but George Gunn was more widely known as ‘Am
Braisdeach Mor’, the ‘great brooch-wearer’, so called for the insignia worn by
him as coroner. He is said to have held court in his castle at Clyth in such
splendour as to rival any Highland chief. The Gunns’ traditional enemies were
the Keiths who, from their castle at Ackergill, challenged the Gunn chiefs both
for the political hegemony of the region and for the land itself. As with most
feuds which were truly fought for wealth and power, a convenient personal insult
was provided to justify the constant bloodshed as an affair of honour. It was
claimed that Dugald Keith coveted Helen, daughter of Gunn of Braemor. The girl
stoutly resisted Keith’s advances but he, on learnng that the object of his
desire was to be married to another man, promptly surrounded her father’s house,
slew many of the inhabitants and carried the hapless girl to Ackergill. She
threw herself from the Castle Tower rather than submit to her kidnapper. The
Gunns repeatedly raided Keith territory but they suffered defeat in 1438 at the
Battle of Tannach Moor and again in 1464 at Dirlot in Strathmore. Having
suffered considerable loss of life, both families agreed to meet to settle their
differences in what was probably intended to be a battle of champions. Each side
were to bring twelve horse, but when the Keiths arrived they had two warriors on
each horse and, as they outnumbered the Gunns, a slaughter ensued. The chief and
four of his sons were killed and the great coroner’s brooch stolen. The chief’s
remaining son, James, from whom the Gaelic patronymic probably derives, avenged
his family in due course by killing Keith of Ackergill and his son at Drummoy.
The Gunns were now fighting for their very existence. The Earls of Caithness and
Sutherland entered into a pact to destroy Clan Gunn, probably sealed at Girnigoe
Castle around 1586. There were a number of indecisive encounters and heavy
casualties were inflicted on both sides. The Gunns strengthened their connection
with the Mackays when Gunn of Killearnan married Mary, sister of Lord Reay, the
Mackay chief, and the next Gunn chief thereafter
i married Lord Reay’s daughter. The son of
this marriage, the sixth chief, was generally known as Donald Crottach, ‘the
hunchback’. It was in his time that the house at Killearnan was destroyed,
apparently due to an accident with gunpowder. The lands of Killearnan themselves
were lost through debt. About the same time the fortunes of one of the branches
of the clan reached their pinnacle, although not on its native soil. The Gunns
of Braemore were the descendants of Robert, a younger son of ‘Am Braisdeach Mor’,
and were generally known as the Robson Gunns. Although he was a Catholic, Sir
William Gunn, brother of the Robson chieftain, took service in the army of the
Protestant king of Sweden and rose to command a battalion. He later fought for
Charles I, who conferred a knighthood on him in 1639. He returned to the
Continent, entering the service of the Holy Roman Empire, and married a German
baroness. He became an imperial general and was created a baron of the Holy
Roman Empire in 1649. Debt also overcame the Gunns of Braemore, who were forced
to sell their estates at the end of the eighteenth century. The Gunns of
Killearnan obtained a new estate at Badenloch, where they sought to revive the
splendour of their ancestors with pipers and all the other panoply of Highland
chiefship. The Gunns did not rally to the standard of the exiled Stuarts, and in
the Jacobite rising of 1745 they fought on the government side. The eighth chief
served as a regular Highland officer and was killed in action in India. The
chiefship passed to a cousin in whose line it remained until
the nineteenth century, when the tenth Macsheumais Chataich died without an
heir. The clan is presently led by a commander, Iain Gunn of Banniskirk, a
descendant of a seventeenth-century Caithness laird, who has been appointed
under a commission from the Lord Lyon, King of Arms. Petitions have been
presented recently to the Lord Lyon seeking to establish representation to the
bloodline chiefs, and it is to be hoped that a successful claimant will be
found.
|
