Pitenchagal # MAI S NO2901 3
Petthechelac' 1224 St A. Lib. 327 [agreement concerning the teinds of Pitenchagal; for context see discussion, below]
Pertynhaglis 1491 NAS GD26/3/796 [17th c. copy (1649); ‘of the lands of Inchinnie MAI and Pitenchagal’ (de terris de Inchawne et Pertynhaglis), associated with lands of Easter Markinch (Eister Markinch), belonging to John Multrar (Mowtray)]
Pittinhaglis 1491 NAS GD26/3/796 [17th c. copy (1649); see preceding entry]
Pettinhaglis 1511 RMS ii no. 3642 [to Henry Wardlaw, in lordship of Dalginch KWY, MAI; linked with Bighty (Bychty) MAI; see KWY Introduction, Lands]
Pettinhaglis 1512 RMS ii no. 3738 [in lordship of Dalginch (Dalginche); see KWY Introduction, Lands, and Inchinnie # MAI]
Pittinhagillis 1609 Retours (Fife) no. 205 [Henry Multrar (Moultray) of Seafield (Seyfield) KGH in Nether Markinch (Nether Markinche), Pitenchagal, Inchinnie # (Insheho<ni>e), Bighty (Bichtie) ... in parish of Markinch]
Pittinhagillis 1627 RMS viii no. 1162 [James Law, feuar of Dalginch (Dalginshe), granted lands to Mariota Boyle (Boill), wife of the archbishop of Glasgow; ‘... Pittinhagillis, Inchechony ...’ ]
Pittinhaggilis 1665 Retours (Fife) no. 978 [James Law of Brunton MAI (Bruntoun)]
Pittinhagils 1685 NAS GD26/3/950 [Bighty (Biyhtie), Pitenchagal and Inchinnie (Inchinnie)]
Pittinghalls 1694 Retours (Fife) no. 1355 [James Law of Brunton (Bruntoune)]
Pittenchagill 1799 Sasines no. 5328 [part of lordship of Balgonie MAI, associated with Inchinnie (Inchinnie)]
Pittenhagles 1801 Sasines no. 6035 [associated with Inchinnie (Inchunie)]
Pittenhaigle 1807 Sasines no. 7812 [Mary Landale, ‘eighth part of the town and lands of Easter Markinch called Kirk Markinch, Pittenhaigle, and Inchany’]
Pitenchagal 1820 Sasines no. 13284
G pett + G an + G eaglais
‘Land-holding or farm of the church’ (pett na h-eaglaise), the specific element possibly adapted from Pictish * egles. The most obvious referent is the church of St Drostan, now the parish church of Markinch. However, the early thirteenth-century dispute between the rectors of Kilgour (now FAL) and MAI regarding the teinds of this land complicates the picture (St A. Lib. 327). The teinds of Pitenchagal were being claimed by both the priory of St Andrews, patron of Markinch, and Malcolm earl of Fife, patron of Kilgour. In 1224 both parties, the earl being represented by William vicar of Kilgour, settled the matter as follows: all the teinds of that land of Pitenchagal (Petthechelac’) which Earl Malcolm had added, granted and by his charter confirmed to Sir Malcolm of Melville (de Maleuilla) ‘both in corn and in all other offerings’ (tam in blado quam in ceteris obuencionibus omnibus) were to remain forever freely, quit, wholly, peacably and without any gainsaying in the possession of the church of Markinch and its rectors. And the rectors of the church of Kilgour were to possess fully, peacably, wholly and without any gainsaying all the rest (of the teinds) which had been in dispute (St A. Lib. 327). In other words the teinds of this land were divided between the two churches.
This dispute can be interepreted in various ways. It could mean that both these parishes had once been part of a single ecclesiastical unit. If this was the case, then, while both Kilgour and Markinch show signs of early Christian presence, the obvious importance of Markinch in the early record might suggest that Kilgour had once belonged to a wider parochia or jurisdiction centred on Markinch rather than vice versa. However, the later associations of Pittenchagal make it clear that it is geographically much more a part of the lands of Markinch than of Kilgour, suggesting that Kilgour’s early parochia stretched as far as Markinch, with Pitenchagal a piece of land which remained with the mother-church of Kilgour after the church of Markinch had become established. A third possibility is that, through the vagaries of secular lordship and ecclesiastical endowment, Pitenchagal could have been granted to Kilgour without any implications of ‘centre and periphery’ as regards Kilgour and Markinch. If this last is the case, then the eponymous church of Pitenchagal could refer to the fact that it belonged to Kilgour, or simply that it was church-land. The fact that the settlement shared the teinds of Pitenchagal between the two churches shows that, despite physical distance from Kilgour, this church’s claims were strong enough to retain certain rights in the land.
Pitenchagal belongs to a group of Pit-names in Fife with explicitly religious associations, the others being Pitbauchlie DFL and Pitliver DFL (PNF 1), Pittoscall # KTT (above) and probably Pitlour SLO (PNF 4).
This place-name appeared in printed volume 2