Burn

Halloran pours scorn on my observation that Burnswark might actually be derived from Scots or Middle English burn (a stream) and wark (a fortification), calling these possibilities ‘unfeasibly late’ and asserting that I give ‘no detailed etymology’ for my suggestion (2010, p. 252). He prefers to ask ‘what were the original names for the hill and the hill-fort?’ (2010, p. 252). Sadly, he does not tell us the answer to his question, unless it is something to do with the posited *brunn element discussed above.

I have no doubt that the hill-fort was called something else earlier in its existence, but what that name was and whether the name had any relation to the present one is anybody’s guess. We can only wait for the evidence to be found. For the present, we must deal with the evidence we have.

Halloran refers to the opinions of Neilson (1910), Johnston (1934) and Mills (2003) about the meaning of the name* to dismiss the notion that the early spellings of Burnswark offered by Neilson, namely Burnyswarke 1542, Burniswork 1608, Burneswark 1623, and Burnswark 1661 might refer to a burn or burns. Johnson-Ferguson adds two further early spellings, Burniswerkhill 1541 and Burniswarkleyis 1625 (1930, pp. 54-55). Halloran cites one additional spelling of Brunswork from Sir John Clerk in 1730 as if this negates or cancels out the multiple earlier Burn - spellings (2010, p. 252).

Halloran appears to think that the ‘presence of “burn” names for a few farmsteads in the locality’ (and, as I noted, for the streams in the vicinity, of which there are many) somehow makes it especially implausible that there is a reference to burn in the name Burnswark, as reflected in the earliest spellings we have. Likewise he argues that the complete absence of dun names nearby and the complete absence of characteristic dun features make Burnswark a plausible dun (2010, p. 252; see further on *brunn above). This is, to say the least, a counterintuitive use of topographical evidence.

In terms of the detailed interpretation of the spellings, the Dictionary of the Scottish Language (DSL) gives plenty of evidence for burn ‘1. A brook or stream,’ and for wark ‘9.a. The (action of or activity concerned with) building, repairing, etc. (of an edifice, etc.).’ The northern Middle English and Scots plurals and genitive singulars of nouns are typically - ys, - is, and - es. Both dictionary entries specifically mention the use of these words in place-names, so my proposed etymology ‘fortification of the burn, fortification (in the area) of the burns’ clearly reflects this particular strand of historical, geographical and linguistic evidence. This interpretation is entirely plausible if the name Burnswark represents a late Middle English formation.