Talk:Early Scandinavian Dublin

Wow

This is an extremely impressive article, especially the maps! Well done to those that did it. Fergananim (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WOW indeed. This is a very good article, unfortunately somewhat hidden away. This list Special:WhatLinksHere/Early_Scandinavian_Dublin is way too short. This is one of the rare Wikipedia-articles that not only covers it's subject in a comrehensive way - but actually covers a much larger subject (in a comprehensive way). This is (unless there are more hidden treasures that I haven't seen) by far the best article at English Wikipedia covering the period 800+ in Ireland. I think it should be renamed something like Norse Ireland and included in {{History of Ireland}}. The emphasis on Dublin is no real argument against such a move, as the Norse presence in Ireland to a large extent was centered around Dublin. Kudos to Eroica for creating this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fin(d)- and Dub- / -gaill and -genti

From the lead of present article: "Findgaill or Findgenti ("White Foreigners" or "White Gentiles") and the Dubgaill or Dubgenti ("Black Foreigners" or "Black Gentiles")" I don't know gaelic, but other literature translate fin(d)- and dub- as "fair" and "dark". "Genti" in the Annals is normally translated "heathens" or "pagans". Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I do know Irish and I have translated the terms literally. Fair and dark have been used by those who believe that the terms refer to hair colour, a view that is now generally rejected. Genti is used in the Annals to refer pejoratively to heathens, pagans, Norsemen, etc. According to the Dictionary of the Irish Language, it is derived from the Latin gentes ("people") and was originally used to represent Gentiles in the Jewish sense. The term Gentile is derived from the Latin gens. A separate article would be needed to deal comprehensively with these terms and their role in Irish history. (Eroica (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Even if "fair" and "dark" probably originated as translations based on the outdated "hair-colour"-theory, it is still (and then probably because of the historiographical tradition) how modern scholars (who have rejected that theory for sure) translate it, at least in the works just checked. No big deal, just saying... Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker, but I have never heard fionn used for "white", only bán. My Gearrfhoclóir Gaeilge-Béarla (An Roinn Oideachais, 1981) does translate fionn as "1. White; bright, clear. 2. (Of hair, complexion) Fair", but De Bhaldraithe's English-Irish Dictionary - in a quite long entry under "White" - never uses the word fionn, although in a number of instances he uses geal. Even under an equally long entry for "Fair" he only uses fionn for hair (or "person", by which he presumably means complexion). "Black" is the primary meaning of dubh, but De Bhaldraithe gives it as the second of two words for "dark" (the first being dorcha). The Gearrfhoclóir prefers "swarthy". I'd be a little dubious of the "literal translation". Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Even today fionn can mean "white". That's the very first translation of the term in Ó Dónaill's Irish-English dictionary. Finngaill is a Middle Irish term from the ninth century. "White" is the primary meaning of finn according to the Dictionary of the Irish Language, which is based mainly on Old and Middle Irish texts. (Eroica (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

It's the first-mentioned meaning in the Dictionary of the Irish Language, the second being "fair, light-hued (of complexion, hair, etc.)". It doesn't say anywhere that it's the primary meaning. When you say "even today fionn can mean white", are you speaking as a habitual user of Irish, or what is that based on? I said that I haven't heard it used for white, but you haven't said that you have. It doesn't really matter. If, as Finn (Rindahl) says, modern scholars still use "fair" and "dark", and if those words are supported by the dictionary - which they are - then we shouldn't be substituting our own "literal translations". Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

David N. Dumville (Old Dubliners and New Dubliners in Ireland and Britain, Medieval Dublin, Volume 6 (2005)) translates them thus:"finn and dub, 'white' and 'black', 'fair' and 'dark'...." So I am not substituting my own unusual translations. (Eroica (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

You answered Finn's comment, "I do know Irish and I have translated the terms literally." Whether it's 'unusual' depends on your definition of unusual - it is certainly the less common one. Your answer also suggested that that the translation into "fair" and "dark" was wrong, that it was a loose translation based on outdated assumptions. Since (per your Dumville quote) that it clearly not so, and since the majority of sources use "fair" and "dark", I propose to change them.

Also, the whole phrase "and two factions of Vikings of uncertain provenance known as the Findgaill or Findgenti ('White Foreigners' or 'White Gentiles') and the Dubgaill or Dubgenti ('Black Foreigners' or 'Black Gentiles')" is awkward, and too long for so short a lead. The relevant section has the detail for those who want it. "...and two Viking factions: the Findgaill and the Dubgaill" would suffice. I propose to change that as well. Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Scolaire. Your emendation greatly improves the opening paragraph. In a footnote I have added external links to the Dictionary of the Irish Language. Hopefully everybody is happy now and this little dispute can be laid to rest. (Eroica (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Do you think there that there is enough written about these terms to make a small article on them? I've always found them interesting. Maybe other people do too. Something like what was done with Lochlann.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think there is a pressing need for an article on these terms. (Eroica (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Agree, I also left a note about it at BmA's talk page. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But then he left a note on mine... Dubgaill and Finngaill, it's a start. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Better and better

Nice one. The images are especially worth the effort. Keep up the good work! Fergananim (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

CGG

There's some references to "CGG" in the notes - what is that? Not listed along with the other abbr. above the section. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, CGG = Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib, accidentally omitted from the list of abbreviations; I've added it now. (Eroica (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Err, ok, I guess CGG is Cogadh - might be good to add at the top for the benefit of others as slow thinking as myself. Couple of other questions on the notes here. Note 41: Corráin 1998 as support for that Amlaib was sent "to do battle with the Dubgaill." I can't find that Corráin actually says that (though I might have missed it) - I looked at p. 24 where he writes

What may be a reply from Viking Scotland to the Danish attacks in Ireland came in 852: 160 ships and their crews were sent to Carlingford Lough to do battle with the Danes but the expedition was unsuccessful. Next year, Amlaíb, ‘son of the king of Laithlind’, came to Ireland and got the submission of the Vikings of Ireland and he received taxes from the Irish.

I presume you mean note 43. I've added a page ref (p. 24). Note 43 is a reference to the whole sentence, not just the last phrase. It is clear from Ó Corráin (1998, p. 24) that he regards the Dubgenti (the Irish Annals' term for the invaders of 851) as Danish Vikings, while the Laithlind Vikings were Norse (see p. 39). (Eroica (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

And also, note 51, which ends "See Ó Corráin (1998) and Downham (2007) for hostile comment." What does that mean, comments hostile to what? Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that the comment is hostile to the entry in the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland detailing the lineage of the Ímar. Ó Corráin and Downham both reject that entry as late and wholly unreliable. (Eroica (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Yes, that was note 43 - apologies for that, and thanks for replying to my questions so quickly. I certainly agree that the overall thinking in Ó Corráin (1998) is Dub/Finn = Danish/Norse (with the qualification of those terms he makes in note 2, page 1), it is not clear however that Amlaib was sent "to do battle with the Dubgaill" - there is no account of a battle upon his arrival (that I'm aware of). It's not even clear if the Dub- took possession of Dublin in 851. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I think we should be very careful in putting firmer conclusions in the mouth of our sources than they've actually have made.

Note 51, for one thing, "hostile" strikes me as a very "loaded" word here, your wording on this page, "reject as late and unreliable" (I ommitted "wholly") might be a better alternative. The note also does gives a possible interpretation (by whom?) of FAI 401, so it is not clear if Ó Corráin/Downham are hostile to the entry or to this particular interpretaion.

On a side note, the whole article could benefit very much from separating "references" (inline citations) from "notes" (offering more information/discussion) - using <ref group="note">). This is a very good article, I'm picking at details in order to better understand stuff myself, and as an intended side-effect make the article even better. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

First Viking Age?

"The First Viking Age lasted from 795, when Viking raids on Irish settlements began, until 902, when the ruling Norse dynasty was expelled from Dublin." Was there a second Viking Age? I think not. Also, the dates of the beginning and end of the Viking Age depends on where you are recounting it from. Most sources give 1066 as the end of the Viking Age.

I suggest: "The Viking presence in Ireland lasted from 795, when Viking raids on Irish settlements began, until 902, when the ruling Norse dynasty was expelled from Dublin." Kortoso (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a problem with wording. What is meant is "the first age of the Vikings in Ireland". From their first attack on Lambay (or maybe Rathlin) island in 795 until their expulsion from Dublin in 902, the Vikings were primarily raiders. After their return to Dublin under Sitric Cáech in 917, they consolidated their hold on the country with the Kingdom of Dublin and other kingdoms in Wexford, Waterford, Cork and Limerick. They formed alliances with Gaelic kings, and generally involved themselves in Irish politics, becoming known as "Ostmen" rather than "Norsemen". This would be the "second age of the Vikings in Ireland", and is considered to last until 1014, when they were defeated by Brian Boru at the Battle of Clontarf. But curiously, now that you mention it, this "second age" – the more important era in many respects – does not seem to have an article of its own. Scolaire (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)