I am very interested in the origin of the place name Tinsley, and I note that it has been suggested that the name means 'Field of Council' or similar (for example, Wikipedia). However, I am unable to discover who has suggested this meaning, which is not the meaning suggested by the English Place Name Society''s county survey as being the most probable.
I should be very grateful if anyone can tell me who suggested this as a meaning, and on what basis it is suggested.

Thank you.

According to Addy (Glossary of Sheffield):
In Domesday this place is written as Tirneslawe, but the Recapitulation has it correctly Tineslawe. There can be little doubt that this word is A.S. pinges hlaw [sorry insufficient Anglo Saxon keys on my laptop to reproduce this], the hill of the meeting or assembly. Compare the Manx Tynwald and the Shetland Tingwall, the parliament field, the place where the ping sat, in Old Norse ping-vollr. 'It answers in sense to the modern parliament house, but parliaments and courts of old time were held in the open field or a plain; hence the name.'

Thank you very much for commenting and for the information which is very helpful.

My interest stems from noting certain correspondences between Tinsley and Tynwald (originally a place name) in the Isle of Man, where I live.

My aim is to check, so far as possible, whether these correspondences are purely coincidental, or might be of some significance.

The English Place Name Society has ''Tynni's mound' as the probable origin of the name, Tynni being an Old English personal name, not separately recorded, but derived from this and other place names. This is also the probable origin given in the 'Dictionary of English Place Names' A D Mills 1998.

As mounds are often associated with meeting places, and for other reasons, my gut feeling is that the name Tinslow (which appears to have been in use as an alternative name for Tinsley until at least the early eighteenth century) probably meant 'the assembly's mound'. However I am no expert in place names.

Do you know of any material which discusses the relative merits of the two interpretations? If you do, that would be very helpful to me.

David Phillips

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Placenames (4th ed) -usually called 'Ekwall' after its editor- gives 'Tineslawe' for the Domesday entry, and 'Tunneslowe' in 1292; also I've seen 'Tynslowe' in 17th century wills. Ekwall explains this as 'Tynna's barrow', commenting that 'Tynne is a side-form of Tunna'.
I like the idea of the 'Thing-low', but these compounds don't usually have a genitive 's' in the middle; instead you would expect at least some early forms to preserve a 'g'. Also the general view is that Strafforth Wapentake met at Conisborough, though maybe the parishes & townships of Upper Strafforth would have found Tinsley quite central for a separate 'moot' -not in Hallamshire, but near it. Then again, where was the original 'Strafforth' which should be the same as Stratford & Stretford -'the ford on the Roman road'?

Geoffrey:slightly_smiling_face:

Thank you very much, Geoffrey.

Although this is not my main interest, it happens that I have already given some thought as to whether Tinsley was once a meeting place for the wapentake, and I will share my thoughts with you.

I believe the following theory to be plausible.

1. In the mid seventh century King Oswy received from the Pope the relics of various saints, including Saint Lawrence. (Bede)

2. These relics, or part of them, were used in the establishment of chapels in various places, including Tinsley.

I think there is some doubt as to whether Tinsley chapel was originally dedicated to St Lawrence or St Leonard. Although I have not yet tried to verify this, the information presently available to me suggests that there was a chantry dedicated to St Leonard within a chapel dedicated to St Lawrence. However if it is true the chapel itself really was originally dedicated to St Leonard, then it is very unlikely to predate the twelfth century, when dedications to St Leonard came into fashion. However, as I said, I believe there are good grounds for supposing that the chapel has always been dedicated to St Lawrence.

There is no reference to the chapel in Domesday, but dedications to St Lawrence are sometimes very old, and its status as a chapel rather than parish church leaves open the possibility that it predates the establishment of parishes.

3. The wapentake met at or near Tinsley chapel for the sake of convenience, there being relics available on which oaths could be sworn.

4. These meetings would have been used as an opportunity to buy and sell, to gossip and to play, and in time the meeting held there on St Lawrence's Day, probably more of a holiday than anything else, became known as St Lawrence's Fair.

5. The clearing at Tinsley, even at Domesday, was quite small, and eventually the fair, and perhaps all of the proceedings were moved to nearby Templeborough, where a Roman road crosses a river, a more convenient site perhaps for those taking part in the commercial aspects. Hence Stratford.

6. Subsequently the fair, having grown further, was moved, by the exercise of political power, to Tickhill, but it was still known as St Lawrence's fair and held on St Lawrence's Day. I understand the manor of Tinsley owed services of an unusual nature to Tickhill, which may hark back to a time when Tickhill was already a centre of power, but when the wapentake still met, if it ever did, at Templeborough or Tinsley. It occurs that the services, which appear not particularly onerous, may have originated as an acknowledgement of dependency by the wapentake on Tickhill.

As I said, this is a theory, put forward for proof or disproof, if possible, and I am certainly not putting it forward as historical fact!

Of course, as you say, Tinsley may have been a meeting place, but not of the entire wapentake.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the absence of the 'g'. It looks as though I am going to have to give this more thought, and do some research.

I wonder why Thomas Wentworth's earldom was 'of Strafford'? It is usually said that this was because of his lands in the wapentake, but I wonder.

Note 'Strafford' rather than 'Strafforth', harking back, in part, to the earlier spellings.

Tinsley was a Wentworth manor, and in Wentworth's day, Tinsley chapel may well have been substantially the same as it had been hundreds of years previously. Thoresby, writing in 1715, refers to the chapel as ancient, and it is likely he would have seen it himself and been able to recognize an ancient chapel when he saw one. Wentworth was an energetic and capable man, and no doubt knew his estates backwards. Perhaps he had learnt things, either from the chapel, or from local tradition, or old records, no longer available? I wonder whether there is anything in Thomas Wentworth's extensive papers on this? If so a student of the seventeenth century history would probably pass it over!

If there is any parralel between Tynwald and Tinsley, the mound at Tinsley would most likely have been some way to the West of the chapel!😊


Kind regards

David Phillips

Thanks for some very stimulating ideas, David.

The relics would no doubt promote the standing of particular saints in Northumbria: perhaps those of St Lawrence were given to the parish of that name in York. On the whole the dedication to St Lawrence points to an early foundation, even though -like many West Riding churches- Tinsley had to wait a long time to become a full parish. It's just possible relics could have been divided, with some going to Tinsley. So the idea of relics to swear on might be plausible.

St Leonard's cult only really took off from the time of the crusades: there was a chapel of the saint associated with the 'Spital' in Sheffield, and a similar arrangement in Derby, I think, though generally he was invoked for prisoners, rather than the sick.

I'm a bit dubious about the early prominence of Tickhill: the castle and town were post-conquest developments, and it became important as a royal manor. As for the Earl of Strafford, I've never given that name much thought; but he was an intriguing character. I shall consult David Hey's writings -would that he were still with us!

Best wishes,

Geoffrey :slightly_smiling_face:

Initially I was quite doubtful about whether Oswy could have used precious relics of an important Saint to found a chapel in a remote and possibly unimportant part of his kingdom. This is not a heartland of either Bernicia or Deira.

However I am not sure this area was so unimportant. Armies from the South might well have passed this way, and King Oswy would no doubt have valued information as to their movements. Perhaps local knowledge of his enemies' movements helped him win the battle of Winwaed, possibly somewhere just to the North of this area. The loyalty of locals would therefore have been important, and entrusting them with relics of an important saint would have helped to secure their loyalty.

Also, King Oswy died in his bed, after a long reign, a difficult trick for a seventh century King to manage, and not managed by his father, his uncle, or his elder brother, who all ruled before him. No doubt he dealt his treasure (including relics) well, and did not sit on it like a dragon on a hoard. He was very generous in giving lands to the church.

Also, and I am indebted to a devout Roman Catholic friend for this information, it is quite legitimate for anyone to create a relic by bringing into contact any object with a Class 1 or 2 relic. So, assuming King Oswy was in receipt of Class 1 or 2 relics, and I can't think the Pope would have fobbed him off with rubbish, he would have had the ability to create relics of St Lawrence himself. Perhaps he limited the supply, and perhaps he wasn't particularly forward in letting recipients know that what they were getting were only Class 3 relics!

I think it is easy to see why a chantry within a chapel, or any chantry, should be dedicated to St Leonard. In life St Leonard is said to have had authority from King Clovis to release any prisoners he liked the look of (that is my interpretation, and not quite how it is expressed!) Perhaps some thought that In death he had similar authority from God to release souls from purgatory?

The parish church in my home town, Middleton near Manchester, is dedicated to St Leonard, but it appears that it was previously dedicated to St Cuthbert, whose remains lay there a number of years. It does occur that the changed dedication might have resulted from the introduction of a chantry into the church, perhaps after a twelfth century rebuilding?

I am very grateful to you for your comments about Tickhill. I can only assume that any transfer to Tickhill of the fair, or of meetings of the wapentake (or part wapentake) must almost certainly have taken place after the Conquest. The same must also be true of the creation of the unusual obligations of the manor of Tinsley to Tickhill. Perhaps the gloves were first presented by the wapentake to Roger de Busli as a token of goodwill on his taking possession of his lands, and perhaps the dove (I am unsure at present whether it was a dove or a hawk) was first given for safekeeping as a symbol of the wapentake's obligation to ensure the peace was kept?

As regards Wentworth, I can see that if I want to get to the bottom of it, then ultimately I may have either to plough through his papers (assuming I am allowed and can manage it), perhaps fruitlessly, or hire a medium! However I would be very interested in anything you are able to uncover.😊

David

I had a look in David Hey's 'Mediaeval South Yorkshire' and found a reference to 'Strafforth Sands' at Mexborough. This is from the Heritage Gateway site:
A circular bailey c. 25m in diameter with a peripheral motte, c 8m high and c. 5m across at the top. The bailey is surrounded by substantial banks rising c. 2m above the present inner ground level and c. 5m above the outer ditch. Entrance to the bailey is via a defensive approach on the north west side that survives as an earthwork. The monument itself is situated on the north bank of the River Don where it would have commanded the area of the ancient ford at Strafford Sands. Writing in the 17th century, Dodsworth mentions "Mexborough, where hath once been a castle", suggesting the stone visible in the top of the motte is part of the foundations of a stone tower. The motte and bailey, with its substantial earthworks, is a good surviving example of this type of monument. Although to some extent disturbed by landscaping, many of the original archaeological remains within the bailey and in the outer ditch will survive beneath the modern paths, bandstand and concreted area.

<2> The truncated motte is 52 feet high above the ditch and the bailey is surrounded by a bank of 6 feet (average) height. The surrounding ditch is 50 feet wide. On the north-west side there is a small half-moon annexe, possibly part of a defended approach or barbican. The motte and bailey are part of a public park, and although landscape gardening has obliterated parts of the earthwork and mutilated others, the main characteristics still survive.

<3> The area of the bailey is half an acre in size and it overlooks an ancient ford on the River Don called Strafforth Sands.

<4> The site has a 'curious little lunette-shaped banked enclosure'. It has been suggested this was for protecting livestock but it could be the remains of a protected entrance-way; 'a sort of barbican, moated, banked and palisaded, which projected to guard the entrance to the fortress.' There is no longer a second or outer bailey but a field to the west shows traces of a considerable amount of ditching, and some ramparting, which may indicate the existence of a protected court on that side.

<5> References, V.C.H Yorks II 33ff, T.H.A.S.I. (191 359, J.B.Arch. Assn. NS Vol. X 38-39
<6> 'South Yorkshire' J Hunter Vol. II, 263, <7> Vol, I p. iv.


Mexborough castle must have been subordinate to Conisborough, though we don't know it wasn't built first. The crossing isn't far from a reputed Roman road, but it doesn't look as if it's on it.

On the relics: perhaps as the relics of Peter & Paul were links of their chains, those of St Lawrence could just be bits of an old griddle!

Geoffrey :slightly_smiling_face:

Thank you very much, Geoffrey

The sands are referred to by two different names in 1 and 3 of the description, using the 'd' ending in one case and the 'th' ending in the other.

Looking at the EPNS site, on the subject of the wapentake name, the earliest references all seem to omit the 't' ending of the first element and use the 'd' ending of the second element. It appears that the 'd' and the 't' endings to the first element do not start until the thirteenth century, and the 'th' ending of the second element not until the fourteenth. There is one late reference to Mexborough, and one to Tickhill, as being the name of the Wapentake.

It appears that the title of Wentworth's earldom reflected the earliest forms of the Wapentake name.

Perhaps the wapentake once met somewhere near Mexborough, possibly at the ford?

Did the original name really mean a ford on a Roman road?

On the subject of the first element of the name, Tinsley, I doubt whether the genitive 's' has any bearing on whether it refers to a person or an assembly. The tenth century reference to Ding's mere in the Anglo Saxon chronicle (with reference to the Battle of Brunnanburh) suggests that the genitive of a noun meaning assembly might be used in a place name. No doubt the 'S' has been lost in most cases, always assuming it was there in the first place.

The missing 'g' is more interesting. The 'g' is also missing from the name Tynwald (as it has come down to us) in the Isle of Man, an undoubted thing site, and Tinwald near Dumfries in Southern Scotland. Tinsley, Tynwald, and Tinwald all have possibly ancient places of worship close to mounds, and originally all three would have been set in woodland. Was there a specialized Old English noun, now lost, which referred to such places, and could this be the origin of the first element of the place names now ascribed to the derived personal name, Tynni? Such a word could have been related to, but distinct from the similar old English word for an assembly.

It has to be said that the earliest thirteenth century references to Tynwald refer to a Norse name, 'tingualla'. Note the presence of the 'g'. However it is difficult for me to see how tingualla becomes Tynwald, and if that process did occur it would have also have to have occurred independently in Southern Scotland. A bit unlikely. Perhaps tingualla, or Tingwall, was the name given to the site by those whose first language was Norse, the elite class until the thirteenth century, whilst those whose first languages were otherwise referred to the place as Tynwald, as they might have done for centuries? The use of the Norse place name would have died out with the language.

Two other bits of tantalizing information.

The chapel at St John's, where the Tynwald ceremony takes place, is dedicated to St John the Baptist, another Saint whose name appears on Oswy's relics list. Granted the list does not refer to 'the Baptist', but it does describe John as a martyr, so it would seem to refer to John the Baptist. I think John the Baptist is described as a martyr elsewhere in Bede.

Also in the fourteenth century, when the leading Manx wanted to say 'from time immemorial', they said 'in King Orry's' days'. Who was King Orry?

No doubt the relic was a piece of an old griddle, rubbish to you and me, but it wouldn't have been presented in that way. To them it was a Class 2 relic (I am not sure they would actually have used the term 'Class 2'! ) of an important Saint, infinitely precious, and no mean gift. 😊

David

Thanks for more ideas, David -it's all intersting stuff!

'Street' and the like in compound names nearly always means a road people believed was Roman, with some kind of paving or engineered surface, but not invariably, and Ryknield Street seems to have been a pre-Roman road which the occupiers used -building villas along the way- and probably improved: perhaps it was like the A1 20 years ago, with odd bits of A1(M). I still can't find a definitive line marked out on a modern map: my old OS map of Roman Britain seems to have been mislaid in the last move.

I'm not clear how we ended up with so many Yorkshire names ending 'forth', rather than 'ford'; my son-in-law is called 'Ashforth' -a good Sheffield name- but old forms ending '-ford' seem to be completely interchangeable.

As you say, there are some T(h)ing- compounds which do have a genitive 's', and certainly a number where the 'g' has dropped, thugh mainly not in England itself. In Tinsley, it could even have started as the British 'dun-' prefix, which gives us Tintern, Tenby, and Tintagel. We have a few British names surviving locally, including Chancet Wood, where the '-cet' is very clearly the Welsh 'coed', originally 'ceto'.

Finally, I didn't mean to suggest that the piece of old iron couldn't have been from St Lawrence's griddle. I'm sure a lot of relics were real; just not many of the chips from the True Cross!

Best wishes,

Geoffrey:slightly_smiling_face:

Thank you once again Geoffrey.

I think I need to draw some provisional conclusions on this.

1. The first element of the place does not, by itself, establish Tinsley as an assembly site. The missing 'g' makes its interpretation as 'assembly' or similar less likely. Also there are other possible interpretations, at least one of which seems to be more likely.

Incidentally I like the idea of the first element being a possible British survival. There is a 14th century rendering as 'Dynesleya'. I don't know whether this might be relevant.

2. There are examples of the 'g' being lost, and so we can't rule out that it did mean assembly. It seems to me that thie loss would be more likely if the 'g' was pronounced softly, as in the word 'tinge'. In such a case it might have evolved from 'ting-es-law' to 'tin-ges-law' to 'tin-ses-law' to 'tins-law'. I wonder if there is any discussion on how the Angles and the Danes pronounced their 'g's in such a word?

3. The 's' doesn't help very much, and is neutral as regards whether it is a personal name, or a noun meaning assembly. Except that if the evolution of the place name is as in 2 above, it might help to explain why the 's' has survived.

4. The second element of the name makes it likely there was a mound, and mounds are often burial mounds, perhaps named after the person buried, but it is also the case that they were often used as assembly sites. I must admit to having some niggling doubts as the likelihood of to a high status burial of a pagan with an Old English name in this area, but who knows! However I don't think my out of date 1966 OS map of Dark Age Britain now forms any basis for assessing this,

Perhaps any personal name was a reference to the person who owned it rather than the person buried there?

5. All Thoresby might have meant by 'ancient' was a church that looked Norman, but if so, it is more likely to be a rebuild of a previous Anglo-Saxon structure than otherwise. This is especially so given its dedication. A church dedicated to a saint whose relics were installed there might be very convenient for a legal and administrative meeting, especially if there were no others in the vicinity.

6. The strange obligations owed by Tinsley to Tickhill might have originated as an attempt to establish a relationship between an assembly and an incoming power, but it might be something else. What is the symbolism of gifts of gloves, and doves given for safekeeping?

7. The first element of the place name, the likelihood of a mound, the church dedication, and the unusual obligations owed to Tickhill, are all signposts that might point in the direction of an assembly site. The signposts are all obscured, and it is far from clear what any one of them really means, but taking them together there is a good chance that Tinsley was an early assembly site. I don't feel comfortable with saying that it is 'probable'.

I don't think I should give up on Tinsley. There might be something in the Wentworth papers, and there might be something in Archbishop Sharp's survey. There are no doubt other possibilities. Even If matters can't be clarified further, I have no doubt I will learn a great deal from the process, and enjoy doing so!

If there is anything you would disagree with, and wish to comment on, in the above, I would greatly appreciate your comments.

On the subject of the location of the meeting place which gives the wapentake the first of its names, the place to look seems to be anywhere where a Roman or earlier road crosses a river by a ford. I suppose Templeborough is possible, but there are no doubt a number of others. I understand Templeborough is thought to be a late name, and, if so, perhaps it could have replaced an earlier name, perhaps not that of a settlement?

I wasn't suggesting that you were doubting the authenticity of the relics. Perhaps they were authentic, perhaps they weren't. Who knows? I probably shouldn't have used the word 'rubbish'.

All I meant to say was that I think King Oswy would have been distinctly underwhelmed by a gift of 'class 3' relics, and the Pope would have known it.


David

Thanks for a very interesting conversation.
Just one thought about the gloves. In the 14c Tickhill castle was owned by John of Gaunt -an ancestor of mine, as of millions of others- or 'Jean de Gant', the last word meaning Ghent in Flanders, but also by coincidence 'glove'.

Geoffrey

Hi Geoffrey,

The Flemish for Ghent is Gand. It was originally called Ganda, a Celtic word meaning confluence.
Nothing to do with gloves unfortunately!

Heths

But usually 'Gant' in mediaeval French. -G:slightly_smiling_face: