GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-04 > 0892069458


From: Stewart Baldwin< >
Subject: Re: Carrach Calma ancestry table
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 21:04:18 GMT


(Luke Stevens) wrote:

>Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>> I never got around to attempting an ancestor table for Carrach Calma.
>> Are there any marriages in his ancestry which lead somewhere
>> interesting?

>I completed an examination of his ancestry several months ago, and may
>as well post the information I have, so here it is. Pardon my indulgence
>in late sources for early genealogies and my anachronistic use of
>titles. The standard warnings about the earliest generations and the
>missing accent marks apply.

[many omissions to save space]

>18. Cathal, K. Leth Cathail (Ulster) [BS 334,186:7,224:11; CGH p.327]

[the following two quoted paragraphs inserted from a different
posting]

>This was an unproven rash assumption on my part. Since the annals
>and king lists do not, so far as I know, show a Cathal at this
>period, there must be someone who had been called King of Ulster at
>least by some but was later not acknowledged as such. The Cathal
>from whom was named Leth Cathal seems an almost perfect fit, since
>the chronology fits, his grandfather was king of Ulster, and he
>presumably ruled at least this good chunk of Ulster, by the very
>fact that it was named after him. It would not be asking too much to
>suppose he was an unsuccessful claimant, or perhaps a usurper,
>unnoticed in the annals. The source for the entry in BS could of
>course be expected to use the more flattering title, whereas once
>his rivals gained predominance no one thereafter would recognize
>him as such. This Cathal seems to me the only reasonable choice,
>though I'd like to see any other ideas as well.

I agree that this Cathal seems the most likely one, but the falsely
given title "king of Ulster" is still worrisome, and I think that
better evidence is needed before we can be sure about this link.

>I presumed also that Cathal at least ruled the territory named after
>him, since no examples come to mind of a case where this reasoning
>is not valid. Although it would not be called Leth Cathail as such
>until later, I have, as I warned, made due with the anachronistic
>title for lack of a better one.

The reasoning is not valid, because the phrase "a quo Leth Cathail"
menas only that Cathal was the ancestor of the sept known as Leth
Cathail, and no more. The choice (presumably made by his descendants)
to name the sept after him does not tell us anything about what
happened during the lifetime of Cathal. As for making due with a
title, why add a title at all when solid evidence for one is lacking?

>34. Ailill, K. Ciannachta, d. 702 [BS 334,186:5,224:9; AU]
>35. Eriu [BS 334,186:5,224:9]

Based on Dobbs's translation of the metrical Ban Shenshus, it looks
like Oirind(i) is an acceptible genitive form for Oiriu. Since Oiriu
is apparently a variant of Eriu, it looks like this link is probably
OK.

>68. Cenn Faelad [AU]
> perhaps the Cenn Faelad m. Gerthidi, K. Arda Ciannachta, d. 662 [AT]

This is correct. See CGH p. 247 [Rawl. B 502, fol. 154a, or section
1351 in the www version] for proof. Two additional generations can be
added:

136. Gerthide mac Cronain, king of Ciannachta, living 593 [AU]
272. Cronan mac Tigernaig, king of Ciannachta, living 573 [AU]
Earlier generations from Rawl. B 502 are Tigernach m. Ailella m.
Echach Binnich m. Dubthaich m. Bressail m. Fiachach m. Thaidgc, of
which all but the latest one or two should probably be taken with a
grain of salt.

>1024. Colman Mor, K. Meath, d. 557 [NHI]

For the very early kings of Mide (Meath), "king of Uisnech" would be a
less anachronistic title. See Mac Niocaill's "Ireland before the
Vikings".

>2048. Diarmait Derg, K. Ireland, d. 565 [NHI]

Diarmait's status as a descendant of Niall is regarded as suspicious
by some recent historians. See for example, Byrne's "Irish Kings and
High-kings". That his father was named Cerball is reasonably certain,
but the claim that this Cerball was the same person as (the possibly
ficticious) Fergus Cerrbel is uncertain.

>2049. Erc (or Eithne) [BS 330,181:2,217:12]
> BS 330 and 217:10 call her Erc, while BS 181:2 calls her Eithne.
> BS 330, 181:12, and 219:2 all say that Eithne was wife of Aed
> Slaine, half brother of Colman Mor. This is either a sister of
> Erc or an alternate name for Erc herself. BS 330 and 218:1 each
> offer an alternative account of the mother of Colman Mor, but
> both can be dismissed as errors, in light of other entries
> (BS 180:13,181:3,217:10).

Once you reach the early sixth century, all entries in BS should be
regarded with skepticism.

>2312. Muiredach [NHI]
>2313. Erc (or Eithne) [BS 330,180:8,217:7]

She should be omitted. The name "Mac Ercca" is a perfectly acceptable
personal name (compare Mac Bethad, the famous Macbeth), and does not
necessarily imply the name of his mother. No early source makes
Muircertach Mac Ercca a grandson of Loarn of Dal Riata.

>4615. Indorb Find [BS 329,180:7,217:6]
> "the eloquent daughter of the Saxon (recte British?) king."

As I stated above, BS entries from this time period should be taken
with a grain of salt. However, if the entry itself is valid, I see no
good reason to emend "Saxon" to "British".

>4616. Loarn Mor, K. Dalriada [BS 330,180:8,217:7]
> "Compendium of World History" indicates that he died 10 years
> after his father Erc and 16 years before Fergus, i.e., 484/5.

When you have to resort to the "Compendium of World History" as a
source for early Irish and Scottish history, I think that the
information thus obtained can be safely discarded until such time (if
any) that it is found in a more appropriate source.

Stewart Baldwin

This thread: