Talk:Baile Chuinn Chétchathaig

Context, synthesis and quality

I have just received my copy of The Kingship and Landscape of Tara and am surprised at the narrowness and selectiveness of it. A number of entries in the prosopographies betray a lack of familiarity with the basic primary and secondary sources, new and old, on the figures. The genealogical tables are equally poor, arbitrarily following one or another uncited MS.

Bhreathnach's article on the political context of BCC is so narrow in focus it includes no discussion of the old Brega Érainn. DinDraithou (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As if to make some sort of statement by omission, the almost universally accepted evidence that the Dáirine, Dál Fiatach, and Dál Riata were all related is nowhere mentioned in the book's 500 pages. This kind of tactic is popular with some modern would-be scholars trying to avoid difficult or unpopular issues, or excessively complex ones, but the end result is that their work can't be used for much by traditional scholars requiring demonstrations and reasoning. Often omission betrays lack of familiarity masquerading as informed opinion.

So I have to say that a fair part, and that part most used in Wikipedia, of the collection reads like an unreliable popular title. Expansion of this article will need to rely mostly on Byrne and Charles-Edwards, and earlier scholars.

That said, greater coverage of the Laigin, even at the unfortunate expense of the Érainn, is welcome and useful. Also, Prosopography II, that covering the "Women of Tara", is substantially superior to Prosopography I (kings). I propose a general Queens of Ireland article for Wikipedia. DinDraithou (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a queens article makes sense. There's no sovereignty goddess article though, which is rather unhelpful. Without hanging around in the coffee room and by the photocopier at UCC, TCD and NUI, it's hard to say why particular ideas don't make the cut. The disclaimer at the top of the genealogy tables could be an indication of what the editorial team were thinking. If you decide to take a narrow view of what the trustworthy sources are, the synthetic histories and most genealogies are too late to be trusted very far. Even early genealogies are not ancient oral records. Or rather they aren't only oral, and the oral parts can't be proven to be especially ancient. "The genealogies are historical sources wholly based on a written tradition, there is no convincing evidence to show that any of these texts are oral materials later committed to writing, and they and related documents were produced and preserved by clerical scholars, often masters of monastic schools."

I think it is problematic to consider the use of older works. F. X. Martin, in his introduction to volume II of the New History of Ireland (p. lv) refers to a revolution in Irish studies beginning in the 1930s and producing its first results with publications in the 1970s by the likes of Smyth, Richter, Ó Corráin, Byrne, Mac Niocall, &c. These days a genealogy may not be seen as a trustworthy guide to the time before its creation, yet earlier historians appear to have had no qualms in this regard. The migrating pottery view of culture and language spread that informs older writings is widely criticised. The archaeological record is understood very differently today. And no doubt there are many other differences in the framework. Ultimately any decision in this regard will be to a degree a matter of taste to be decided by each editor and in each article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Darini and Iverni the gist of the genealogies is supported by linguistics and by Ptolemy, although MacNeill in his still cited Phases of Irish History doubts whether the leading royal families of the historical Érainn were actually "of the ancient stock by blood", based on vague references in the medieval literature to various categories of "old Érainn", "new Érainn", "true Érainn", "base Érainn", etc. Besides, O'Rahilly and Dobbs are repeatedly cited in Bhreathnach. Byrne himself (1973) refers to each, the Dáirine (Corcu Loígde), Dál Fiatach, and Dál Riata, as Érainn and does not modify this in the 2001 edition of what is still considered the most masterful treatment of Irish kingship.

It would be another thing if the team explained the omission, or got at all into what they thought (if they thought) of the suspicious attachment of the Dál Cuinn and Érainn pedigrees at Óengus Tuirmech Temrach, the "reckoner of Tara", surely something relevant to the kingship. DinDraithou (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Queens of Ireland, do you favour a list-like article with categories for ancient and mythological queens, provincial queens, queens of high kings... ? DinDraithou (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. Probably just one "Queens" to start with and split it up (as should have happened with the "High Kings") when it gets big enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus Dubdétach

I am absolutely mystified here. Fergus Dubdétach was a king of Tara from the Dál Fiatach who is included in every list I know of, as well as in the Laud Synchronisms. He is the third king of Tara listed in BCC, between Mac Con and Cormac, and yet Mac Shamhráin and Byrne omit him with no explanation from their unsatisfactory Prosopography and the other contributors appear to be in agreement. No explanation is offered anywhere in the volume that I can find, but they have him and his siblings at the top of the Dál Fiatach pedigree on p. 353. Unbelievable. DinDraithou (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, this kind of thing is not unbelievable at all. Compared to missing out huge sections of a book out (most recently inflicted on me by Sutton/Tempus/whateverthey'recalledthisweek with Kari Maund's The Welsh Kings) or duplicating parts (a prize to Yale U. P. here for Barlow's Edward the Confessor) this is a minor flaw. Fergus does get mentioned in passing in the BCC gloss on §3 (88-9) and in Connon's prosopography (231). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've found that they are not the first. Byrne omits Fergus from his list pp. 276-7 and does not say why. Then Wiley leaves him out of his summary. I haven't paid for access to Charles-Edwards at Questia yet and wonder if he has anything to say. Got him handy?

The possible "argument" that he did not drink the ale according to BCC is no good. It does not say Mac Con does either.

I've checked the 1952 translation of N by Murphy and find no hint of any problem. DinDraithou (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles-Edwards starts much later - the first king he has on his lists is Lóegaire. He's doing a comparison between the Chronicle of Ireland, BCC and various other lists. He doesn't do much pre-Patrician (or pre-Palladian perhaps) at all. His book covers a much narrower period than the others, from Lóegaire to Áed Allán and Cathal really. There's odds and ends on before and after, but not so much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dáire Drechlethan

I am interested in your opinion here, especially because of your background in Leinster. Personally I find Mac Shamhráin and Byrne's suggestion and listing of Dáire mac Cormaic (and first!) absurd and borderline inexcusable because he is not only a virtual non-entity but is also obviously a genealogical attempt to bring some of the Dáirine into the Dál Cuinn family. Bad scholarship. MacNeill and O'Rahilly would wretch.

Dáire Doimthech alias Sírchréchtach, on the other hand, is listed in multiple sources as a king of Tara and apparently a powerful one. Seeing that a few of the Dál Cuinn kings are misplaced chronologically in BCC makes his probable misplacement not a problem. Finally, his kin Mac Con moccu Lugaid Loígde are listed.

The question is Dáire Barrach, although it is only academic and I don't think him likely. It is not just that the Laigin are excluded by Dál Cuinn. His epithet is suspicious, as nicely discussed by Byrne, and O'Rahilly believed the Uí Bairrche to be Érainn or Dáirine. Regardless of whether that bad bunch were p-Celtic or not, the name Dáire, used in genealogies, is widely accepted to be associated closely with septs known or suspected to belong to them. Do you have any more on Dáire Barrach and the Uí Bairrche? DinDraithou (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several interesting things to add to my slightly deranged discussion. First of all, Drech-lethan means "broad-faced" (face-broad), as in Murphy and the Dictionary of the Irish Language. Second, an alternative spelling of Sírchréchtach is Sírdréchtach, but dréchtach according to DIL and the Coir Anmann (Fitness of Names) means either 1) "numerous", or 2) "belonging to or skilled in song, poetry". Drécht on its own can mean either 1) "portion, section", or 2) "poem, literary composition". Drech, on the other hand, can mean 1) "face, countenance", or 2) "Of things, places, face, front; surface", and in compounds "-faced, of . . . aspect, appearance".

So the difference is a fada and a -t. Not much. You can check it all at eDIL, Letter Degra-dúus, Columns 390 to 392.

Now to chronology. The placement of Dáire Drechlethan, assuming he is Dáire Doimthech nó Sírch(d)réchtaig, after Mac Con moccu Lugaid Loígde, very well might reflect an alternative tradition. I have just found a pedigree here in Rawlinson at ¶1505: Fergus dano fodeisin iarna máthair m. do Róich ingin Echach mc Carpri m. Lugdach m. Loga Luaith m. Ceithnenn Caiss m. Danann Deirg m. Eithéoir m. Echach Fiadmuine m. Congail Costudaich m. Echach Apthaich m. Airtt m. Flaind m. Ébir Bricc m. Echach Étgudaich m. Dáiri Doimthich m. Rossa Riguill m. Lugdach Loígde ut supra. This is in the notorious Senchas Síl h-Ír "History of the Descendants of Ir" compilation where the Cruthin try to get away with appropriating the ancient Clanna Rudraige and which every leading scholar for a century has condemned as a spectacular fabrication.

There is also mention in the various "Genealogy of the Dáirine/Corcu Loídge" tracts that Dáire may have just been another name of Lugaid, or that that was actually his name. Of course O'Rahilly and MacNeill and others have discussed all this at length and think all two hundred of them are the same two or one person or deity, namely Lug. So is Lug listed in BCC? Twice? Three or four times?

lol. DinDraithou (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is all too complex for me. I'm no sort of expert on these genealogies. It certainly wouldn't be a surprise to find that Lug appears under other names in BCC though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good bet. Lug is associated with Tara and appears to Conn in Baile in Scáil. We could start to speculate wildly. DinDraithou (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should create an article on Dáire Drechlethan for the benefit of people unlikely to visit this talk page? DinDraithou (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much there is to say, not having Mac Neill or O'Rahilly and I'm never sure about the best way to handle composite characters as I keep changing my mind on the subject. It would make sense to have some sort of article on Dáire Drechlethan. And anything that need be said about Dáire Barrach can just as well be said at Uí Bairrche. Charles-Edwards accepts the historicity of Dáire Barrach's supposed son Muiredach Mo Sníthech, although that says nothing about Dáire. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Dáire Drechlethan. Do you think you could create Muiredach Mo Sníthech and Móenach? DinDraithou (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And talk about composite characters: Dáire is the King! I wonder if I can find enough out there to create Dáire Dornmár? He was a grandson of Conaire Mór and I'm getting hints from googling that the Dál Riata may have taken some Dáire legends to Scotland, attaching them to him. Have you come across them? DinDraithou (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baile Chuinn Chétchathaig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120075004/http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Baile_Chuinn.html to http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Baile_Chuinn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]