An interesting question again Fiona! I can’t answer this question either but here’s a few points to consider? The first question is: what is the definition of a monastery versus a church or chapel at this period? It's difficult to define, but I’d suggest a monastery is a centre where several monks are permanently housed and crafts and agriculture undertaken, while a church might just be manned by one person or by itinerant monks from a nearby base. So I think your question should be broken into two – Was there a Pictish monastery here? And secondly, was there a chapel here? The answer to the first is almost definitely no, as you point out, most large churches and monasteries in Pictland do have evidence of carved stones, and most of them seem to continue on into historical times. But more critically, monasteries were major royal patronage centres, given political protection and voted a lot of resources, and they wouldn’t normally be established so close together, as Kinloss and Kinneddar. The only possible scenario might be if Kinloss was a female nunnery partnered with a male group at Kinneddar, but that’s pure speculation, no evidence for it.
But was there a chapel at Kinloss? I think the jury is out on that one, because there is that fragment, waterworn, but I’m struggling to see it having moved under its own steam from Kinneddar, it’s more likely to be from a chapel somewhere in this Kinloss area. This is supported by the other small memorial stone at Achareidh, which is possibly another small church, both of them governed by Kinneddar. (The same pattern is seen in the south too, where there is a definite centre for carving and burials, but one or two at outlying chapels). But then, if there was a small chapel somewhere near Kinloss, then it’s going to be dated between four or five centuries before the later monastery, and with all the chaos of the Viking years between, so I’m not sure it’s easy to draw a direct line between a possible small chapel of no note and the later monastery half a millenium later, even if they were on the same spot.
Thanks Helen, I agree the lack of sculpture is definitely a big point against the idea of there being an earlier monastic settlement at Kinloss. But then I also think of Birnie, which has no Christian sculpture of note, but it does have an early Christian bell, and it went on to become one of the earliest cathedrals for Moray. So I don't think it's possible to discount Kinloss just on the basis of lack of sculpture, especially as there is an incredible piece of monumental early medieval Christian sculpture nearby.
I'm going to keep an open mind for the moment and keep digging around, as I think there's something significant about Forres (and Kinloss) in the early medieval period that hasn't really been pieced together yet due to a severe lack of evidence. My thought is that by throwing everything at it: archaeology, geography, landscape, place-names, textual sources, etc. some things may come to light that have been overlooked so far. That's my hope, anyway!
NB on the possibility of an early Christian chapel, there is a potential site on the south side of Forres, at Chapelton/St Leonard's Chapel (https://saintsplaces.gla.ac.uk/place.php?id=1315907075). That's getting even further away from the findspot of the Kinloss Stone (at Findhorn) though.
On the monastery/chapel debate, worth bearing in mind that certainly by the period in question they would have very separate focuses and jurisdictions. A monastery was inward looking, a place dedicated to and for a monastic community to seek the divine and would have tried to keep as separate as possible from the laity. Any church/chapel would have been a bishop’s responsibility with it’s preacher answerable to him and serving the spiritual needs of the local community. Hence bells rather than sculpture and priests rather than monks.
However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, any group of monks coming to Kinloss to set up a monastery would need somewhere to worship whilst they established their own priory church. Thus a pre-existing chapel close to the site would make sense. Just need to find one!
I would support your view that there was an earlier church at Kinloss as this was the case with most of the other abbeys. Think Jedburgh, Melrose et al. The most important thing to incoming monks was not immediate building but where could they undertake their primary function, the glorification of God, whilst they were building their model church? Thus they needed a pre-existing church to be at hand.
On Kinloss etymology, I’ve never bought the traditional foundation story as it always struck me as an example of “sounds like” etymology (King lost/Kinloss).
Another alternative I have pondered is whether the Loss that we’re at the head of is the Loxa/Lossie? That river has wandered quite far over the years and certainly ran into Spynie Loch at one time. The Loxa/Loch may well have extended as far west as Grange Hill/Miltonhill , emptying into Findhorn Bay with Kinloss Burn being a vestige of what was once a much greater water channel
Thanks Alastair as always for your excellent thoughts. I'd never considered the Kinloss/'king lost' connection! The foundation story may have a grain of truth - if Kinloss does mean 'grassy headland', perhaps it was named as such because it was used for grazing, in which case the story of David coming across some shepherds might have had a ring of plausibility.
There's also the argument that Ptolemy's Loxa was actually the Findhorn, which might explain 'Kinloss', except that it seems probable that the Findhorn was anciently called the Earn, and that the Gaelic settlers named (at least the lower part of) it 'Findhorn'. So a satisfactory explanation remains quite elusive :(
Thanks Suw - this blog is basically my notes for my MA dissertation as I'm *terrible* at note-taking otherwise, so it's lovely when someone else enjoys it!
An interesting question again Fiona! I can’t answer this question either but here’s a few points to consider? The first question is: what is the definition of a monastery versus a church or chapel at this period? It's difficult to define, but I’d suggest a monastery is a centre where several monks are permanently housed and crafts and agriculture undertaken, while a church might just be manned by one person or by itinerant monks from a nearby base. So I think your question should be broken into two – Was there a Pictish monastery here? And secondly, was there a chapel here? The answer to the first is almost definitely no, as you point out, most large churches and monasteries in Pictland do have evidence of carved stones, and most of them seem to continue on into historical times. But more critically, monasteries were major royal patronage centres, given political protection and voted a lot of resources, and they wouldn’t normally be established so close together, as Kinloss and Kinneddar. The only possible scenario might be if Kinloss was a female nunnery partnered with a male group at Kinneddar, but that’s pure speculation, no evidence for it.
But was there a chapel at Kinloss? I think the jury is out on that one, because there is that fragment, waterworn, but I’m struggling to see it having moved under its own steam from Kinneddar, it’s more likely to be from a chapel somewhere in this Kinloss area. This is supported by the other small memorial stone at Achareidh, which is possibly another small church, both of them governed by Kinneddar. (The same pattern is seen in the south too, where there is a definite centre for carving and burials, but one or two at outlying chapels). But then, if there was a small chapel somewhere near Kinloss, then it’s going to be dated between four or five centuries before the later monastery, and with all the chaos of the Viking years between, so I’m not sure it’s easy to draw a direct line between a possible small chapel of no note and the later monastery half a millenium later, even if they were on the same spot.
Thanks Helen, I agree the lack of sculpture is definitely a big point against the idea of there being an earlier monastic settlement at Kinloss. But then I also think of Birnie, which has no Christian sculpture of note, but it does have an early Christian bell, and it went on to become one of the earliest cathedrals for Moray. So I don't think it's possible to discount Kinloss just on the basis of lack of sculpture, especially as there is an incredible piece of monumental early medieval Christian sculpture nearby.
I'm going to keep an open mind for the moment and keep digging around, as I think there's something significant about Forres (and Kinloss) in the early medieval period that hasn't really been pieced together yet due to a severe lack of evidence. My thought is that by throwing everything at it: archaeology, geography, landscape, place-names, textual sources, etc. some things may come to light that have been overlooked so far. That's my hope, anyway!
NB on the possibility of an early Christian chapel, there is a potential site on the south side of Forres, at Chapelton/St Leonard's Chapel (https://saintsplaces.gla.ac.uk/place.php?id=1315907075). That's getting even further away from the findspot of the Kinloss Stone (at Findhorn) though.
On the monastery/chapel debate, worth bearing in mind that certainly by the period in question they would have very separate focuses and jurisdictions. A monastery was inward looking, a place dedicated to and for a monastic community to seek the divine and would have tried to keep as separate as possible from the laity. Any church/chapel would have been a bishop’s responsibility with it’s preacher answerable to him and serving the spiritual needs of the local community. Hence bells rather than sculpture and priests rather than monks.
However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, any group of monks coming to Kinloss to set up a monastery would need somewhere to worship whilst they established their own priory church. Thus a pre-existing chapel close to the site would make sense. Just need to find one!
Hi Fiona,
Usual post blog post musings…..
I would support your view that there was an earlier church at Kinloss as this was the case with most of the other abbeys. Think Jedburgh, Melrose et al. The most important thing to incoming monks was not immediate building but where could they undertake their primary function, the glorification of God, whilst they were building their model church? Thus they needed a pre-existing church to be at hand.
On Kinloss etymology, I’ve never bought the traditional foundation story as it always struck me as an example of “sounds like” etymology (King lost/Kinloss).
Another alternative I have pondered is whether the Loss that we’re at the head of is the Loxa/Lossie? That river has wandered quite far over the years and certainly ran into Spynie Loch at one time. The Loxa/Loch may well have extended as far west as Grange Hill/Miltonhill , emptying into Findhorn Bay with Kinloss Burn being a vestige of what was once a much greater water channel
Just my tuppence worth as usual
Keep it up!
Thanks Alastair as always for your excellent thoughts. I'd never considered the Kinloss/'king lost' connection! The foundation story may have a grain of truth - if Kinloss does mean 'grassy headland', perhaps it was named as such because it was used for grazing, in which case the story of David coming across some shepherds might have had a ring of plausibility.
The whole Kinloss/Lossie/Loxa thing is interesting and frustrating at the same time. Michael Stratigos has mapped the probable extent of Spynie Loch/Roseisle Loch at various periods, and during the early medieval period, when Kinloss would have acquired its Gaelic name, it doesn't seem to have extended nearly as far as Grange Hill. (His paper is here: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174631/1/A_Model_of_Coastal_Wetland_Palaeogeography_and_Archaeological_Narratives_Loch_Spynie_Northern_Scotland.pdf)
There's also the argument that Ptolemy's Loxa was actually the Findhorn, which might explain 'Kinloss', except that it seems probable that the Findhorn was anciently called the Earn, and that the Gaelic settlers named (at least the lower part of) it 'Findhorn'. So a satisfactory explanation remains quite elusive :(
I love your posts, they are always so interesting!
Thanks Suw - this blog is basically my notes for my MA dissertation as I'm *terrible* at note-taking otherwise, so it's lovely when someone else enjoys it!