|
|
Ireland's early
medieval kingdoms were understood both
as population groups and as geographical
regions
The Túath –
People or Place?
 The
túatha, the ‘tribes’ or ‘petty
kingdoms’, of early medieval Ireland, have been
studied in various ways in the past. Often this study has
focussed on the túath as population group. This
approach is not unreasonable as the word is related to many
others in languages of Indo-European origin which also mean ‘people’,
‘population’, ‘tribe’, and so on. In Old
Irish, too, it means primarily ‘people’ or ‘tribe’.
What is interesting, though, is this:
"The
law texts indicate that the basic territorial unit is the
túath" (Fergus Kelly, Guide to Early Irish Law,
p.3)
and,
from the Dictionary of the Irish Language (DIL), we get, as
the second meaning listed for
túath:
“(b)
In Laws territory, petty kingdom”
In
both of these cases the context is specifically legal. In
other contexts, however, the meaning is almost universally ‘people’
and not ‘place’. But there are exceptions.
Digging deeper into this reveals that not only does
túath refer to ‘place’ in the
precise terminology of the law, but it is sometimes used in
this sense elsewhere. Several dozen territory names of
medieval Ireland (from a total of over a thousand) were
named túath X. A couple of examples are
given here :
 Túath
Ruisen, given as equivalent in extent to Rosless civil
parish, barony of Carra, Co. Mayo
Túath
Aésa Gréine, coterminous with modern
Tuogh parish, diocese of Emly, Co. Limerick
It
could be argued that these examples refer to the physical
extent of the area occupied by members of Túath
Ruisen or Túath Aésa
Gréine, or directly to the tribe in question.
That is true, perhaps, but in both cases the descriptions
are specifically geographical, we also have references to
these population groups without the use of the word
túath. The addition of túath
is just that: an addition. We can point, for example, to
references to Aes Gréine or Aos
Gréine; further, the form in which this
population group’s name is given in the original
example suggests ownership or posession: ‘the
túath of the Aes Gréine’.
That the context is a geographic description strongly
suggests that we are talking about a territory rather than a
tribe here. There are dozens of other examples which can be
added to these, reinforcing the case by sheer weight of
numbers. An examination of the names in Edmund Hogan’s
‘Onomasticon Goedelicum’, though it has some faults, will
quickly reveal this to be so.
We
can even look to Modern Irish for support. ‘Faoin
túath’ (in the countryside) is a term very
familiar to anyone who has studied Irish even at primary
school level. This meaning of ‘countryside’
arose at some point, and with the hints we have there seems
some reason to consider Old Irish as a likely source. I’ll
return to this point shortly.
Back
to the legal angle. Fergus Kelly, as noted above, agrees
with DIL in giving túath as a legal term
meaning ‘territory’. We might ask why. Why would
a word defining a population group be extended to refer to
the land on which they lived? In a rural society –
perhaps moreso than in a partly or largely urban one –
ownership of land, the definition of the boundaries of that
land, defence of land, use of land: all are critical. The
fabric of society depends on it, and the welfare of the
population equally so. We might look on laws as arising only
where problems have gone before, and in cases of land
ownership, military incursion, inheritance, and so on
claims, counter claims, disputes, allegations and worse are
not exactly unheard of; ideal settings for the application
of laws. The key factor in all these cases, however, is who
owns what. While individuals come and go, taking references
such as ‘Dubthach’s farmland’ with them,
tribes – túatha – tended to
stick around for somewhat longer. Hundreds of years, in
fact. When the average size of a túath is
considered, remembering D.A. Binchy’s often-cited
estimate of 150 túatha sharing the island of
Ireland,
it is not hard to see how very useful a legal term for the
unit of land held by the commonest autonomous
socio-political unit might be. And so, I suggest,
túath meaning ‘territory of a tribe’
arose initially in the legal arena and most likely as a
result of the unusually large number of such territories
there were crammed into this little island.
I
suggest also that this legal term, over time, filtered into
more common use and became a general word to use for a ‘place’
as well as for the ‘people’ who lived within its
boundaries. Its just such a useful word to have, especially
when it refers to a place occupied by people who share a
common identity and allegience with you, and most of whom
are little more than a day’s walk away.
From
there we can return to the Modern Irish phrase faoin
túath. As recently as a decade ago Ireland’s
population was located more in rural than urban
environments. There is a long heritage behind that: in the
medieval period Ireland was almost exclusively rural in
character, with Norse and Anglo-Norman towns and some
monasteries constituting pretty much all the settlements
which could be termed urban or proto-urban. Almost everyone
lived within a dispersed settlement pattern, with homes
dotted across the landscape rather than clustered together.
To go ‘out in the countryside’ –
amuigh faoin túath – would effectively
be the same as going ‘out among the people’.
Whether or not the use of túath in its
modern sense arose from, or independently of, the original
legal meaning, it is not hard to see how the transfer of
meaning arose. I have not been able to locate the earliest
recorded usage of this modern phrase. However, it would be
interesting to see just how early the first record actually
is, and if it can be dated to the 15th century or
earlier.
The
Túath in Wales?
We
can show that túath with a meaning related
to ‘place’ probably arose within the legal
terminology of early medieval Ireland, and expanded into
common use. We can also show that no other language with a
cognate word developed this variation in meaning, and that
Irish is unusual in this respect& or can we? Two other
languages break the mould. Old Prussian tauto had a
meaning of ‘land’, and Welsh tud means ‘country’
or ‘nation’. It is hard to see a direct
connection between the speakers of Old Irish and Old
Prussian, though an examination of social structure in both
locations may perhaps reveal some interesting similarities.
However, it is not the Prussians that concern us here, but
the Welsh.
There
are several references to Irish incursions and settlements
in Britain immediately before and in the earliest stages of
the medieval period. They vary – sometimes wildly –
in the dates they ascribe to specific settlements, ranging
from the 200s AD up to the 500s. They are also generally
found in legendary or pseudo-historical contexts, and both
of these facts have led to great reservation on the part of
scholars to speak of them with much certainty beyond the
basic level. We know more about the Dál
Riadan settlement in part of what is now Scotland than
we do of the less successful ones in Wales and the Devon/
Cornwall area. In both cases what we do know is not great,
and there are those who dispute that any medieval Irish ever
settled in Wales or south west Britain at all.
If
we do accept the possibility of Irish settlement in Wales,
however, that Welsh word – tud –
becomes potentially extremely interesting. One of the main
elements in the argument for Irish settlement in Wales is
the presence there of ogam inscriptions,
which otherwise are found almost exclusively in Ireland, and
there mainly in the Munster counties of Kerry, Cork and
Waterford. It is from these two last that settlers in Wales
are said to have come, bringing the ogam script with them.
Now our additional detail arises: Irish
túath, meaning ‘territory of a single
population’, and Welsh tud, meaning ‘country,
nation’. What, I ask, is a ‘country’ or a ‘nation’
in geographical terms but the territory of a single
population? The parallel is striking. So, too, is the
absence in Scots Gaelic of any usage of
túath as ‘place’ such as is
found in Irish, despite that language being born of its
Irish cousin.
It
could be argued therefore that the transfer of meaning from ‘people’
to ‘place’ which we can see in Irish was carried
to Wales by settlers originating in Munster and that those
who left Ulster to settle in Scotland failed to do likewise.
Like a curious child, we might continue to ask why. One
possibility that suggests itself is regional variation. If
túath with a meaning of ‘place’
was originally or most strongly rooted in Munster, we could
point to this as perhaps a reason for a transfer to Welsh
when a similar transfer did not occur to Scots Gaelic. I
cannot show that the Welsh word derives from the Irish. It
may have independent origins, or indeed the meaning may have
actually travelled the other way – from Britain to
Ireland: we have pseudo-historical accounts of some of the
Leinster peoples originating in Britain.
Allow
me one last speculation, though, on the matter of dates. It
is thought that Irish settlements in Wales may have followed
the decline of Roman power in Britain, with the political
instability that may have caused (itself a disputed issue)
opening the way for a successful Irish incursion leading to
the establishment of an Irish kingdom or kingdoms. If this
is so, it probably occurred in the early or mid 400s AD.
Searching the annals for dates for the settlement of
Dál Riada gives a wide range of possible
dates, but the early 500s AD seem a popular choice. If there
is anything at all credible in the above possibilities we
may be able to point to the period in between the Welsh and
Dál Riadan settlements as the time during
which túath meaning ‘territory’
spread through Ireland. In this case records of the
distribution of the term túath meaning ‘territory’
may not reveal a good picture as all placename records we
have were recorded much later than both the Welsh and
Dál Riadan settlements - time enough for
túath in its new meaning to spread
islandwide. It is, however, at least worth looking at the
distribution patterns just in case. After all, if there is a
regional imbalance which favours the above theory it would
be worth knowing about.
The Geography of
a Geographical Term
It
would be extremely difficult to identify specific dates for
changes in the usage of one word in late iron age or early
medieval Ireland. In fact it is almost cetainly impossible.
In the case of túath we may actually have
such information. That possibility could be brought closer
to probability by a Munster bias in the use of this term in
tribal and place names. So, do we actually have any
noticable regional variation in the use of
túath in medieval Ireland? It is perhaps
worth loking briefly at the geography of this geographical
term.
A
quick run through the location – where it is available
– of each tribal or place name in túath listed
in Hogan’s ‘Onomasticon Goedelicum’
results in a marked provincial variation. Sixty-seven are in
Munster, forty are in Leinster, twenty-one in Connacht, and
Ulster has thirty-one. Immediately it is apparent that
Connacht has less such names listed than Ulster – ten
less in fact. On this basis we may already cast doubt on
Ulster as the last part of Ireland to receive the ‘new’
meaning of túath, if numbers alone are taken into
account. Using the same rough guidelines, though, also tels
us that over forty percent of the total lie in Munster. Thus
far, the evidence seems to say both 'yes' and 'no'. However,
we have not yet taken account of the distribution by
county.
Within
Connacht there is an imbalance. Nine of the sixteen names
which we can easily link to specific counties are found in
Co. Galway. Thus, over 56 percent of Connacht examples lie
within a county that borders on Munster, and one which was
partly under the control of the ruling dynasty of Munster
during the early medieval period. This appears promising.
Looking at Leinster we see that we can locate twenty-eight
names by county. As with Connacht, one county bordering on
Munster – Offaly – gives a large number: seven
of the total. However, Meath has a similar number, and both
Louth and Westmeath have four each. Laois has two, Kilkenny
has but one, and Wexford none at all. Evidently the ‘borders
of Munster’ rule is not universal. Ignoring provincial
boundaries, however, we can see a sliding scale across the
island from Galway to Wexford: 9, 7, 2, 1, 0. Perhaps there
is something in this, but first consider Ulster.
The
picture gets more complex. Looking at Ulster throws the
distribution theory further in the air: the counties with
the highest numbers of locatable names are Donegal and
Antrim, and there is no discernible pattern among the rest
of the Ulster counties. Antrim contained the original home
of the Dál Riada. Perhaps this aspect of the
theory is in trouble, perhaps not. Until the location of
each name is pinpointed as best as is possible, the tribal
and territorial names are separated and dated as best as
possible, and both are mapped we cannot get any real grasp
on this side of things. More on that issue
shortly.
Meanwhile,
some facts which do clearly stand out are that Munster is
home to over 42 percent of all medieval names in
túath, and Leinster, the other province with
associations with Wales contains a further 25 percent.
Further, more than half the examples from Connacht come from
a county with Munster associations, and Offaly, which was
also partly under Munster rule during the medieval period
shares the highest total for a Leinster county.
Much
work needs to be done on this and other aspects of
settlement, territory and territorial naming in early
medieval Ireland. This small topic is just one of many which
deserve closer attention, and it is hoped that this article
will at least serve to provoke others into beginning an
exploration of this enormous and engrossing field of study.
A beginning has been made, drawing on the work of others and
on primary sources: the Historical Irish Place Names Online
project (HIPNO). The objective of the project is to produce
the best possible database and maps of Ireland's territorial
divisions during the early medieval period, and to make
these available online. Though still in its infancy (only
part of county Kerry has so far been examined in detail),
some interesting results have arisen. One such is the
location of almost all túath names in
Aes X in Munster, and these in areas with early
links to the Corcu Lóegde. Though such
observations are technically side-effects of the project's
work, they are potentially just as valuable as the final
maps. Future articles in
Insight
will highlight other results of the HIPNO project as they
arise.
Bibliography:
Edmund Hogan, ‘Onomasticon Goedelicum’
(reprint), Four Courts Press, 1993
Fergus Kelly, ‘A Guide to Early Irish Law’,
DIAS, 1995
D.A. Binchy, ‘Críth Gablach’ (reprint),
DIAS, 1979
‘The Dictionary of the Irish Language’ (compact edition),
RIA, 1998
Damian McManus, 'A Guide to Ogam', XXX, XXX
My particular thanks to David
Stifter for assistance during research on this
topic.
 ©
Stiofán MacAmhalghaidh MMII
About the author:
Stiofán MacAmhalghaidh studied Medieval
English and Medieval European History at Trinity College,
Dublin where his interest in settlement and place names
initially developed. He is currently researching settlement,
territory and boundary in early medieval Ireland.
To discuss this
article:
You can discuss this article on the
Irish
Place Names,
Early
Medieval Ireland,
or Irish
Linguistics
discussion groups. The HIPNO project operates through the
Place Name group. To subscribe, click on the group name
above.
To cite this
article:
MacAmhalghaidh, S. "Túath: People or Place?", INSIGHT
Magazine, July 2002
Our authors appreciate being notified
of citations. Calraige@eircom.net
|
.