Talk:Déisi: Difference between revisions

Does this article really belong in the "Tribes of Ancient Britain" category alongside the Brigantes, Catuvellauni et al.? Paul S (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

The article is starting to evolve. I'll let the evolution arrive at a reasonable statis and then change the map to be consistent with what is known (eg, date of entry into Dyfed, peoples involved). Will also change title to South Irish Settlement in Britain, per DinDraithou's fine suggestion. My own interest here is more related to the Welsh side than to the Irish, but without an agenda or opinions (or so I like to think).

• locations ... in Wales the inscription stones are associated with Irish-only (with a couple of anecdotal exceptions), but correlating arrival with stone dates is an iffy proposition and probably misleading. However, it seems a good way to estimate the extent of Irish occupation (though not population density). Brycheiniog derives from a move from the west of Wales and is not tied to the migration and occupation.
• dates ... for a large scale arrival, it seems that it must be at least X^{need an estimate} years before "Cunedda's conquest", as thorough occupation of large areas could not have been instantaneous. Working backward, that should be at least X^{need an estimate} years before "the conquest", which is assumed to be c. 450 without good authority.
• peoples ... Déisi to S. Wales, either (or both) Laigin/Uí Liatháin to N. Wales. I suppose the latter depends on the dates assumed (4th century implies Uí Liatháin and not Laigin, right?).

Any comments? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

First paragraph: "...had little or no actual kinship, though they were often conceived of genetically related". I'm having problems understanding the meaning of this, does "conceived of" here mean something like "seen as"/"considered [by someone] to be", and if so, who considered them to be related? They themselves, other people/septs, or medieval/present day scholars? Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

There has been a huge influence from medieval works like the Book of Invasions and later O'Rahilly's Early Irish History and Mythology (see O'Rahilly's historical model). The tendency was first to assume the existence of broad, vague population groups such as the Érainn. Later commentators then began to realize that a number of kindreds were given fictitious descents, and soon enough almost everyone not ruling in at least a provincial overkingdom became suspect. The result has been a combination of these approaches in which individually suspect kindreds tend to get grouped together into one or another of these broad, partly artificial population groups. Thus if one in five Déisi could be proved to have once been Érainn (no one has proved anything) then the other four will lose all their other options and just sort of "become that too". It's extremely unscientific but the method still makes many otherwise talented scholars happy. Dan M. Wiley for example, an otherwise capable reader, continues this moronic approach in his contributions to Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopedia, listed in the articles references, and simply calls "the Déisi" Érainn, totally unsupported, there being no proof whatsoever of a broad ethnic population of "Déisi" across Ireland or of a single kindred ever having been "Érainn". Ever heard of the Luminiferous ether? DinDraithou (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

To answer Finnrind's question, what I meant was that later people thought of them as related, although they were probably not related in origin - they kind of came up in different places. The Expulsion of the Deisi is specifically about the supposed ancestors of the Deisi of Munster, but there is no indication that they consider other Deisi groups to be actually distinct. As DinDraithou indicates the same conception has been accepted by certain modern commenters as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, DinDraithou. Apologies for reverting, but some reasons given below:

• This article is about the Déisi (not Irish migration in general nor Munster). Material relating to other groups should be of direct relevance. The reference to Cunedda etc (even if you are prepared to accept the historicity of this story [and favour a mid 4C date??]) has no relevance here. Similarly the "Érainn associations" of the Uí Liatháin.
• The text is potentially misleading: Uí Liatháin were not "western neighbors of the Déisi Muman" in this ‘migrationary" period - Déisi Muman (the kingdom) did not yet exist (this I have tried to clarify).
• With respect, the final sentence is written in vague and contentious language (... commonly suggested ... no proof whatsoever ... generally poor understanding) and has an overwhelmingly axe-grinding tone. It may well be relevant (perhaps at the beginning in the initial definition of déisi population groups?) but, I suggest, lay readers will neither understand nor find useful your particular hobby-horse riding. Suggestions welcome. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.218.73 (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Good call. I think Uí Liatháin may be worth mentioning here, but we don't need that level of detail.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Hobby-horse riding? Axe-grinding tone? Uncalled for, and your interpretation. Edit out that language or I will. Apparently I struck a sore nerve somewhere.

You deleted the only mention of the Érainn in the article and the general context in which the Uí Liatháin and Déisi (Muman) are commonly introduced in introductory works on Irish history. As you would have it the article lacks contemporary political frame of reference, on both sides of the sea, for the population in question, which remains misty. But who was in charge, or rising, and where? Have you read Dál Riata? You accuse me of vagueness yet apparently seek to maintain it in the article.

I made no contention that the actual kingdom of Déisi Muman existed at this time. Your second concern appears tactical. DinDraithou (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello DinDraithou, To be clear: you reverted and required me to justified why I had edited your text, involving the deletion or reduction of material. I took the trouble to explain that, with the exception of the last sentence, the edited passage furnished details relating solely or predominantly to the Uí Liatháin (one of your primary interests) but irrelevant or tangential in an article on the "déisi / Déisi" (broadly construed). This view I maintain, although, upon reflection, I concede that the absence of an over-arching "Irish Migration" page (Scoti will not do) can pose difficulties in the placing of material.

With regard to the final sentence, concerning the Érainn identity (or not) of the Munster déisi, I explicitly acknowledged the potential relevance of this topic and suggested that it be incorporated or developed elsewhere on the page, but in its current form it was badly worded and uninformative, being merely an allusive swipe at a communis opinio of unspecified persons, whose view, without citation or argumentation, you characterised as "reflect[ing] a generally poor understanding". My rejection of this has nothing to do with it striking a "sore nerve", as you allege (I am in fact in broad agreement with you); it has everything to do with producing a text that is useful to others. I note that in your subsequent revision/expansion of the article you have not explained this context or why you think it vital. I assume and (genuinely) hope that you will apply your expertise to this question in future expansions.

Taking the very sensible advice of Finn Rindahl (below), I now appreciate that I have clearly breached the etiquette customary in Wikipedia, and I therefore apologise to you, DinDraithou, if my comments were or appeared disrespectful. I hope that you will understand that I have unwittingly imported a (sometimes unfortunate) tone from a more cut-and-thrust academic milieu.

Moving on (hopefully), with regard to your revision and expansion of the article – I found much to admire, although the delicious juxtaposition of "must" and "perhaps" in the MacCotter quotation speaks volumes!

I have one specific and, I believe, important point. Under "Déisi Muman" you naturally note that "versions" of the "Déisi"/Eochaid transfer to Dyfed "were evidently known in both Ireland and Britain". And, of course, much has been made of the correspondence between the "Irish version" (in "Exp. of Déisi") and the "Welsh version" (in Harleian MS etc), a correspondence which appears to offer mutual authentication. You cite Ó Cathasaigh (1984) 19-21. But Ó Cathasaigh does not say this exactly. He argues cogently (and, if I recall correctly, Miller 1977/8 has a similar view) that the list of Eochaid’s descendants who ruled in Dyfed found in "Exp. of Déisi" in fact comprises badly copied variants from the Welsh genealogical material (as later preserved in the Harleian MS), and that this information was passed to Irish scholars from the court of Dyfed at some point, probably in the 8th century. This has profound implications. If the "Irish version" is dependent on the "Welsh version", then the remarkable correspondence between the two becomes unremarkable, as it is merely the product of a late textual connection. We thus face the possibility (or likelihood?) that the Eochaid episode is entirely Welsh in origin (which, as a foundation legend for a Dyfed dynasty, would make a great deal of sense), and was later transmitted to Ireland and grafted on to the Déisi Muman Tara-Munster migration legend (and in the received text of "Exp. of Déisi" the Eochaid episode certainly has an incidental, tacked-on character). If this be the case, then there is, in effect, no "Irish Version" and the independent Irish evidence for the "Déisi"-Dyfed migration evaporates. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.14.83 (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

A general point on the discussion: Both the ip-user and DD are making valuable contributions to this article, which I highly appreciate as I'm an interested reader who came here to learn more about the Deisi. This, and every other wikipedia article, benefit greatly from different ecitors contributing from different perspectives and with different areas of interest/emphasis - even more so when the editors discuss (and hopefull reach consensus) on how to best present the material. Calling someones interests/emphasis "hobby horse riding" is something that could easily be perceived as disrespectful, and while "editing out" such expressions isn't really possible or even desirable, an apology might be in order... I hope all editors will refrain from making disrespectful characteristics about each others contributions, and also from speculating about the other editors potential motives. If so, I anticipate a discussion that the article will benefit greatly from.

To the user last editing from ip 138.246.14.83, since you're editing from different ip-adresses I'm going to do leave you a personal message on my own talkpage, I trust you read this and thus will find it ;) Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class Ireland articles
• Low-importance Ireland articles
• Stub-Class Ireland articles of Low-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages

• Pages using WikiProject Biography with unknown parameters
• Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell
• Biography articles with blank priority parameter
• Pages using WikiProject Biography which need living parameter transferring
• Talk pages with comments before the first section