Talk:Déisi

Untitled

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)

Recent changes, map

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)

Kinship & conception

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)

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)

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)

Uí Liatháin

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks Finn.

Re IP personality, I am glad you are part of the academic milieu and can hobby-horse too. When you know enough about the Érainn, let me know and I'll tell you how to write about them yourself.

All that business about the "versions" was added by our capable paraphrasist Cuchullain. I have no intention of reading Ó Cathasaigh, which is your job. DinDraithou (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Article progress and mods

With respects for the good efforts in updating this article-in-progress, and unless DinDraithou disagrees, I wonder if we might let DinDraithou get to his preferred plateau of completion before the onset of merciless editing. Keeping track of a work-in-progress is hard enough without having to go through someone else's thought process to orient oneself before continuation of work. Whatever needs to be changed, whether matters of substance or personal preference, will all be there when he gets to his preferred level of completion. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Notuncurious. I think I've reached that plateau now, and will try to get back to you about those fortresses soon. DinDraithou (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just discovered extensive discussion of the matter in a 1926 paper by MacNeill, from the same collection already posted, but at the very end. I added mention of his arguments at the end of the Déisi Muman section, but have gone into greater detail in the Uí Liatháin article. No doubt everyone will find this interesting. DinDraithou (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

MacNeill argues that Cunedda's sons expelled the Irish from Dyfed? From Ceridigion through everywhere north, but I thought not from Dyfed (well, I've been wrong before ...). Parenthetically, a couple of unrelated suggestions, feel free to ignore them:

The inscribed stones are on the map as evidence to show the extent of Irish cultural influence, as this was not a British custom. For readers who don't know that, perhaps a passing mention in the article text?

The line in the article regarding descent from Constantine, containing "... attempt to disguise the Irish origin ..."; this sounds unnecessarily defensive, plus it seems more likely that someone was trying for an enhancement by connection to the famous emperor, and deleting the Irish connection was incidental to the objective, not the objective itself, as the article currently implies.

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Only the Uí Liatháin apparently. But then he talks about an apparent peace and intermarriage between the houses of Cunedda and Brychan. The wife of Ceretic, Meleri, may have belonged to the Uí Liatháin. Go all the way to the end of this and back up about 14 pages to 132, second paragraph. In the preceding paragraph MacNeill discusses the further wealth of inscriptional evidence. All you have to ignore in his discussion pp. 128-32 are the Eóganachta themselves, whom he mistakenly (old thinking) believes the Uí Liatháin belonged to. For MacNeill's interpretation of the extent of the Uí Liatháin colony and their possible expulsion from Dyfed see 130. DinDraithou (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good find on the article, and it looks like it has quite a bit more useful information; I expect I'll go through it in more detail. For the section you mention, he says that the Irish were expelled from Gower and Cedweli, which is the usual telling of the story. He does not say that they were expelled from Dyfed. See this map showing Gower and Cedweli on the southern coast of Wales. On the map, the historical Dyfed consists of the southwestern-most region bounded by the cantrefi of Is Aeron, Cantref Mawr (the westerly one), and Cedweli. By the way, Cantref Mawr (the easterly one), Cantref Selyf, and Cantref Bychan together form the region associated with Brycheiniog. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Edited myself for better clarity. Notuncurious (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Essay from the net, and related matter

I occasionally come across this spectacular piece of uninformed silliness by one August Hunt, and really hope it never appeared in print. Apparently this fellow is famous with some people for telling them that Cunedda was Irish. Who?

This short piece by Glanville Price is not much better. He seems to think the Waterford Déisi really were in Wales in the late 3rd century. Who has he been talking to?

This I don't know what to say about.

Apparently one way to get read these days is to fail to mention or even explicitely dismiss what is known with reasonable certainty and make seem as fact what has only been speculated. Thus the Déisi in Britain become a certainty, as do the Laigin, even though the latter make no claims in the Irish sources and all we have is a speculated origin for the name of the Llŷn Peninsula. The Uí Liatháin, placed independently in Wales (Historia Brittonum) and Cornwall (Sanas Cormaic), in "unmotivated references", appear to not be worth anyone's time.

Unless of course they happen to be experts, who seem to think rather the reverse. DinDraithou (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Déisi as so-called Érainn

My intention is that we use this section for determining whether or not any of the Déisi ever belonged to the so-called Érainn. Let's start off with what we don't have:

1) Anything suggesting from the vast corpus of Irish genealogies? Nothing.

2) Anything from the historical, pseudo-historical, mythological traditions, etc.? Nothing.

3) Linguistic evidence? None.

4) Archaeological? None.

5) Scholarship? ...

I suggest we try to collect the arguments made in preparation for a respectable section on this problem in the article. DinDraithou (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mairtine

Well I stand partly corrected. In writing up Mairtine I discovered that this prehistoric Érainn people may very well be in part ancestral to the Déisi Tuisceart and Dál gCais. This region of Ireland, old north-central Munster (pre-Thomond), has been described by some Irish scholars in the same terms which scientists use to describe a black hole, and the Mairtine may have passed its event horizon to join a party they would never leave. DinDraithou (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Deasmhumhain

Deasmhumhain redirects here but term is not explained in the article. What is is? Rmhermen (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Kingdom of Desmond. Cagwinn (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Déisi lineages

According to this link, the lineages of the Déisi tribes are:

• Déisi Brega / Déisi Mide
  • Déisi Becc (in Munster around Limerick)
    • Déisi Tuisceart [sic - Tuiscirt?] (as "In Deisi Tuscrict" [sic])
      • Dáil gCais
    • Déisi Deiscirt (as "In Deisi Descrict" [sic])

In spite of the strange spelling (mistakes?), it seems an authoritative site. Furthermore, see also here. There is no mention of "Déisi Muman" per se in either of these references.

However, a brief entry in CODECS describes the Déisi Becc as "Déisi in the kingdom of Mide", and Déisi Muman has an entry also.

Given all this, can anyone shed more light on the naming of the Déisi groupings/lineages?

Marcas.oduinn (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)