Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Heralds Webpage

 

Here is the Letter sent to the Pytt explaining why we can not use Quivira and giving ideas on what we could use.


Please let me try to clarify a couple of things first.

1.  I have been previously contacted to do research on the
name of Pytt of Quivera, several times over the last few years,
the most recent being in November of 2002.  Each time I have
continued to do research, ask questions and try to get support
for the name.  We have been able to determine that the name
element of "quivera" is not registerable.  It falls under the
"Unique Name" provision in the Rules for Submission (RfS) and
thus is not registerable by Laurel ruling.  The information we
had found concerning the name element "Pytt" has been sparse
and showed no usage in a place-name.  It is this information
that has led myself and others to state that it would not be
possible to register the name.

2.  The acceptability of word element being used in a place-name
is not based solely on it's definition, but on whether that element
(or type of element) was used in the word's language for place-name
construction.  

For example the use of the word River is used in place-names
in England, but that does not mean that every language used
that element in their place-name construction.  If the language
Weirdname had the word "revir" that meant river, but never
used the word in place-name construction, you couldn't
construct a Weirdname place-name using the word "revir".

Thus, merely stating that Pytt is not referring to hole in the ground,

but a valley will not make the word more acceptable as a Place-Name
element if the element "pytt" was not used in place-names in the
language it comes from.  We have to find the use of the element
"pytt" in place-names, not just as a word.

Now....all of that said...if we take a look at what information we
have (and I have some new info thanks to some friends in the
Middle and West Kingdoms), perhaps we can make some
recommendations.

The word "pytt" is Anglo-Saxon in origin.

=====

Ekwall s.n. pytt says "OE pytt 'pit, hole cavity' is a rare el.
in pl. ns.  See, e.g. Pett, Woolpit, and cf. Beaumont."

Woolpit derives from OE <wulfpytt> 'pit for trapping wolves.'
Pett is just identical with OE <pytt> 'pit, hollow.'   

=====

Smith's "English Place-Name Elements":

pytt

OE (Angl, WSax), pett (Kt), 'a pit, a natural hollow, an excavated
hole, esp. one where minerals or other materials are got, a grave, a
hole in the ground serving as a trap for animals', found also in ME
f.ns. (as Bd 295, C 341, et passim).  (a) Petlands K (land), (b) Pett
K, Pitt Ha; Fulepet Ess 327 (fu:l), Bumpitt K (ba:n), COckpit Co
(cocc), Colpitts Nb (col), Grimpits Wo (Gri:m), Houndapit Co (hund),
Sandpits YN (sand), Stonepits K (sta:n); v. also wulf-pytt.

=====

Jacobsson, Mattias.  1997.  Wells, Meres, and Pools: Hydronymic Terms
in the Anglo-Saxon Landscape.  Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis,
Uppsala.

There's an introductory section on <pytt> as a hydronymic term on
p.26f, citing various uses as a common noun in the 9-13th centuries.
Examples in the context of proper names include:

Dorset
p.62 <w{ae}ter pytt> 1035
p.62 <(on anne) water pyt> 943

Gloucestershire
p.73 <(on) befer pyttas> 950 "Beaver-pit"
p.73 <(on) hriscy pyt> 779 "Rush-pit"

Hampshire
p.84 <(on {th}one) grundleason pyt> 961 "bottomless-pit"
p.84 <(on {th}a) lampyttas> 990 "loam-pit"

Worcestershire
p.162 <(on) c{ae}rs pytt> 709 "cress-pit"
p.162 <(on) {dh}one deopan pyt> 963 "deep-pit"
p.163 <(0n) fulan pyt> 972 "foul-pit"
p.163 <(of) grindeles pytt> 708 possibly
"gravelly pit" possibly "Grendel's pit"

=====

>From this, we can make a case for the use of "pytt" as a
place-name element.  However, from the construction
of the names it appears that the element "pytt" is used
with (and conjoined to) a descriptor element that tells
what the pit was used for.  Such as wulf-pytt for a wolf pit.
Thus it would imply that an Anglo-Saxon descriptor
combined with "pytt" should be registerable. 

Now, whether the use of the element "pytt" by itself
(such as in the name Shire of the Pytt) would be
registerable, is another question.  And one that most
likely would be a call the Laurel-of-Arms Office.

My estimation based on this info:

Shire of <Anglo-Saxon descriptor>pytt seems registerable.

Shire of the Pytt is questionable.

However, I am not the Laurel Office, nor would I try to guess
how they would decide.   The group will have to make a
decision on whether they want to risk the time (and possible)
return on the name of "the Pytt" or not.

I hope this has been of some assistance.
If there is any part of this missive that you need further
clarification on, please feel free to contact me.

In Service to Crown, Kingdom and Society,

Baron Modar Neznanich
Volk Herald

main page