nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Was Dublin ever Irish?

brianthebard

A question that popped into my head today that I thought some people might have fun with, along the lines of the thread about Ireland's celtic heritage (or not). Tbh I have no strong views on this, but it strikes me that the town was founded by Vikings, and was inhabited by English settlers for a long long time. was the town ever really Irish? What about the county?
Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

owenc

Yes of course it was irish and it is still irish, it is inhabited by irish people and run by an irish convernment.

depaly

Fort of the Dane,
Garrison of the Saxon,
Augustan Capital
Of a Gaelic Nation.

- Louis McNeice

Enkidu

Further to my last post, here are some words in the Dublin dialect of Irish which survived until the start of the 20th century:
Ná bac leis = Nevermind
scológ = farmer (very different to the other dialects)
garsún = boy
smacht = control
cábóg = dirty man (as in unhygenic not a pervert)
toitín = burning ember

There's lots more in An Ghaeilge i mBaile Átha Cliath by Liam Mac Mathúna. They are collected from native speakers from Shankill and near by areas.

CDfm

I am with you with the empiricist approach and it is a lot harder to have to go in there and support an argument with sources that can be checked.

That makes the forum more enjoyable too cos people can read around a topic. I am amazed at the volume and depth of knowledge I have gotten here and I love history.

MarchDub

Rebelheart wrote: »

Usually I'd agree with you MarchDub but in fairness to Doozie - who gave me supremely detailed maps and information on the medieval walls of Dublin thanks to this thread from last year - it's perfectly acceptable in historical articles for a professional historian to postulate on events where there is A) a clash in the primary sources a gap in the primary sources where an aspect of the past needs to be understood. As long as they explain the lacunae in sources and make it clear that their interpretation of it is surmised then it is acceptable for them to offer an explanation to their peers. It is then often followed by an article from another historian disputing it and from that academic debate is fed. Doing this, within the above confines, is common in history writing. It also accounts for a large part of the reason why history is an 'arts' subject rather than an entirely verifiable science subject.

You raise an interesting point about the position of history within disciplines. As you likely know there has been a raging debate about this for some time with many historians claiming that historic research is a science and ought to be treated as such.

An argument against the science model is that science develops predictive models for the future i.e. smoking can cause cancer etc. and history is about the past. But then there is a counter-argument against this predictive quality as the imperative and sole science model - and that science is about conclusions based on empirical evidence and as such the history model does fit.

I have no issue whatsoever with the model of advancing a position in historic research and then looking for the empirical evidence to support the theory – I’m an empiricist in that sense. What I was talking about in my post was injecting a postulation into a discussion as if that were enough to suggest an alternative to the known evidence. Do you see the difference?

Rebelheart

brianthebard wrote: »

Suggestions are more the preserve of archaeologists and English lit/crit theorists, definitely not historians.

This merely reflects the lack of written sources available to archaeologists. There are many situations in historical writing where a paucity of primary sources exist and in this scenario it's perfectly acceptable for a historian to offer suggestions/solutions to problems as long as she/he makes it clear that these are suggestions because the written sources do not exist. In fact, a professional historian usually wants to read such suggestions because they would invariably be informed suggestions given that the writer has referenced the evidence in the rest of the article and would be an authority on the subject.

Rebelheart

MarchDub wrote: »

Listen, if it's not on record it can't be part of a historical discussion. We might as well speculate that maybe Martians came in a flying saucer and took them all up - or maybe they all left and settled in Japan.

There is no validity in historiography with a statement such as 'just because it wasn't recorded'.

Usually I'd agree with you MarchDub but in fairness to Doozie - who gave me supremely detailed maps and information on the medieval walls of Dublin thanks to this thread from last year - it's perfectly acceptable in historical articles for a professional historian to postulate on events where there is A) a clash in the primary sources

a gap in the primary sources where an aspect of the past needs to be understood. As long as they explain the lacunae in sources and make it clear that their interpretation of it is surmised then it is acceptable for them to offer an explanation to their peers. It is then often followed by an article from another historian disputing it and from that academic debate is fed. Doing this, within the above confines, is common in history writing. It also accounts for a large part of the reason why history is an 'arts' subject rather than an entirely verifiable science subject.

brianthebard

fair enough I thought originally you were trying to make a statement rather than a question, obviously questions are important and yes you can't always have all the info at hand to answer that question straight away. Thanks for clarifying.

Doozie

brianthebard wrote: »

Not really, you were talking about basing theories on what may have happened, I was stating that historians can't do this.

Apologies if I'm not coming across very clear. I wasn't saying historians should base their theories on what may have happened, I was saying historians have to think about theories which haven't been proven or their is no evidence for, to further their thinking and subsequently then their research to prove/disprove theories.

ie. regarding the monastic settlement at Dubh Linn.
1 - 841 the vikings a fort near a monastic settlement - there is evidence
2 - the vikings raided monasteries - there is evidence
3 - the vikings may have raided the monastic settlement at Dubh Linn - there is no evidence, which doesn't mean it did happen but a historian cannot say it did in a published document, but he/she can THINK about it.
4 - questions ensue - what relationship did they have with them? We know the monks disliked the vikings because of comments like 'heathens still at Dubh Linn'. did they have a mutual agreement between them, did they live in constant fear, were they raided so much that they had no more to offer a potential raid by the vikings?

I'm saying, while none of number 4 is proven, it is up to the historian to investigate if this thinking might have been possible and look for evidence, original sources to prove it?

What I was doing was opening dialogue among the boardsies here, to see if anyone knew anymore to help answer the OPs question.

Again, sorry if I'm unclear.

Interesting what one of the other posters put up about speculation being the part of archaeologists. A historian I work closely with always gives out, jokingly, about archaeologists defining the early christian period as The Viking age.

brianthebard

Doozie wrote: »

Think we are saying the same thing here.

Not really, you were talking about basing theories on what may have happened, I was stating that historians can't do this.

Doozie

Doozie wrote: »

Do you think so?
In published cases, historians have to back up all their arguements with fact, I totally agree with that. However, surely you have to think outside the box to further your thinking, therefore seek sources to prove your thinking and therefore you can substanciate your claim?

brianthebard wrote: »

think outside the box sure, but you haven't got the sources to substantiate your claim atm, which is what marchdub was reacting to. Assumptions can be made but they have to be separated from historical fact or narrative.

Think we are saying the same thing here.

CDfm

I still am no closer in understanding if MarchDub is really MarchDane

brianthebard

Doozie wrote: »

Do you think so?
In published cases, historians have to back up all their arguements with fact, I totally agree with that. However, surely you have to think outside the box to further your thinking, therefore seek sources to prove your thinking and therefore you can substanciate your claim?

think outside the box sure, but you haven't got the sources to substantiate your claim atm, which is what marchdub was reacting to. Assumptions can be made but they have to be separated from historical fact or narrative.

JustinDee

brianthebard wrote: »

A question that popped into my head today that I thought some people might have fun with, along the lines of the thread about Ireland's celtic heritage (or not). Tbh I have no strong views on this, but it strikes me that the town was founded by Vikings, and was inhabited by English settlers for a long long time. was the town ever really Irish? What about the county?
Thoughts?

Well I'd say its fairly Irish nowadays . . .

Doozie

Do you think so?
In published cases, historians have to back up all their arguements with fact, I totally agree with that. However, surely you have to think outside the box to further your thinking, therefore seek sources to prove your thinking and therefore you can substanciate your claim?

brianthebard

Doozie wrote: »

Ah here, keep your knickers on, its a forum, not an exam.

I'm trying to say that just because it wasn't recorded (yes I said it again) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Historians have to base their interpretations on what evidence is there, which leads to theories on what may have happened. This is why you dont read historians saying 'this happened'. They say, 'I suggest this happened'.

Suggestions are more the preserve of archaeologists and English lit/crit theorists, definitely not historians.

Doozie

MarchDub wrote: »

Listen, if it's not on record it can't be part of a historical discussion. We might as well speculate that maybe Martians came in a flying saucer and took them all up - or maybe they all left and settled in Japan.

There is no validity in historiography with a statement such as 'just because it wasn't recorded'.

Ah here, keep your knickers on, its a forum, not an exam.

I'm trying to say that just because it wasn't recorded (yes I said it again) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Historians have to base their interpretations on what evidence is there, which leads to theories on what may have happened. This is why you dont read historians saying 'this happened'. They say, 'I suggest this happened'. I hoped that by opening up a discussion someone might come back with more knowledge than me to say, 'yes Doozie, actually there is a record it the AU to say they were attacked'.
ok?
Now... make me some tea too.

MarchDub

For the record - I'm off now to make some tea.

MarchDub

Doozie wrote: »

...a how do we know that that monastry wasn't stricken by raids and half of the monks bundled off as slaves...just because it wasn't recorded...
Was there protection money been paid..?

Listen, if it's not on record it can't be part of a historical discussion. We might as well speculate that maybe Martians came in a flying saucer and took them all up - or maybe they all left and settled in Japan.

There is no validity in historiography with a statement such as 'just because it wasn't recorded'.

Doozie

Doozie wrote: »

It always troubled me though, that the vikings set up camp in Dyflinn, yet there was that Irish settlement at Ath Cliath. It would have been a bit close for comfort to have them beside each other, AND to have a monastery down the road, wealthy or not wealthy. It must have been a very tense few decades.

...and now I'm quoting myself!
I guess... how do we know that that monastry wasn't stricken by raids and half of the monks bundled off as slaves...just because it wasn't recorded...
Was there protection money been paid..?
We do know in 841 it is recorded that the 'heathens were still at Dubh Linn' so there were still some monks in the area...

So... interesting:rolleyes:

Doozie

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Dublin is pre Viking and is derived from Dubh Linn ( Black pool) referring to a dark tidal pool where the river Poddle entered the Liffey near the site of Dublin Castle. There is mention of a settlement there pre Viking, in the Book of Invasions and the Annals of the Four Masters. The Vikings adopted the name as Dyflin and it survives today ofcourse as Dublin.

And while I'm at it, Baile Atha Cliath (meaning "town of the hurdled ford") referred to a settlement near a ford on the opposite bank of the Liffey. It's where Church Street meets the Liffey to those of familiar with the city. A settlement grew up on that side to be later incorporated into the rest of the city.

Yeah, at the time of the first wave of Viking attacks it is thought that there were two other 'settlements' in the area. Ath Cliath was thought to be where the Cornmarket area is in Dublin today, at Thomas st, possibly entered where PatsyTheNazi mentioned above. Then there was possibly a monastic settlement near the Dubh Linn , south of Dublin castle. Both of those settlements are pre-Viking and gaelic.

MarchDub wrote: »

The early Viking raids on Ireland were from Norway and the Danes were the later raiders. In the Irish Annals there is a distinction made between the two as the "Fionn" [white] foreigners from Norway and the "Dubh" [dark] foreigners who were the Danes.

What this descriptive distinction actually means is not clear though - were they referring to the colour of hair or the difference in clothes the two groups wore? I don't think anyone has a clear answer for that.

No, I dont think so either, but we know that they were fighting against each other, i.e. the foreigners and the Dark foreigners, thought to be the Danes.

CDfm wrote: »

So where does this leave the population of Dublin at that time.

Norse or Dane and did they settle ??

I take it they were Norse but did they intermarry with the Irish ??

I dont think you can simplify it because of the settlement aspect. Its not like a bunch of Danes took over Dyflinn and stayed there. There was constant upheaval in Dublin between the Gaelic high kings and the Viking kings so to say it was one or the other would imply a longer period of stable settlement. (IMO).

It always troubled me though, that the vikings set up camp in Dyflinn, yet there was that Irish settlement at Ath Cliath. It would have been a bit close for comfort to have them beside each other, AND to have a monastery down the road, wealthy or not wealthy. It must have been a very tense few decades.

Rabble Rabble

This question tends to come up for Dublin, rather than for other towns founded by non-Irish groups. Since most towns ( as opposed to settlements) were founded by foreigners - Vikings or Anglo-Norman - it doesnt seem that Dublin would have a claim to fame here as the least Irish of Irish towns. All towns in Ireland took in populations from the surrounding Irish countryside over time, although some Anglo-Norman towns kept the Irish populations at bay - the IrishTowns outside the gates of the old Anglo towns.

Were I to guess at the highest frequency of non-Irish genes I would say the South East, in and around Wexford.

it's interesting that Dublin spoke Irish in the 16th and 17th centuries, as many Irish Anglo Norman towns conducted their affairs in English.

CDfm

Nice picture -which brings me back.

I visited Derry last year and was amazed at how small the walled city really was.

Lots of walled towns had restrictions on who lived inside the walls.

So how do we define Dublin & its residents territorally.

MarchDub

I found this picture of the walled city. No date is suggested but post Anglo-Norman obviously.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Maybe CDfm can dig out :pac: the details of this.

LOL

Well I nearly have you marked down as MarchDubh the Viking for now - add a bit of Hugenot and well............

EDIT - The Ladybird Edition & new Viking finds north of the River

http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2010/01/viking-remains-discovered-in-dublin.html

EXcavations 1930-1997 Woodquay -Fishambles etc

http://heritagecouncil.ie/unpublished_excavations/section15.html

MarchDub

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I know very few Dubliners that can trace their family tree back a hundred years without finding relatives from elsewhere in Ireland. Indeed a huge amount of Dubliners have at least one parent from a different county. In many cases its both parents. The frequency increases when you take into consideration grandparents and great-grandparents.

IMO Dublin has always been heavily influenced by different areas all over the island. It therefore is a better representation of the entire nation, than somwehere like , lets say Limerick, which is far more parochial.

While this is true- agreed - my family actually traces back over a very long time. There really are some dyed in the wool Dubs! Mostly we know they were artisans - printers, cabinet makers, coach drivers and clerical jobs at the Castle. Dublin Castle was a large employer in Dublin.

The Huguenots came and intermarried in the 1600s. They eventually apparently joined the Church of Ireland. But the mixture of Catholic and Church of Ireland criss-crosses all over the place - even within siblings. Looks like there was very little religious tension - at least at family levels.

The Vikings who founded the city did intermarry with the Irish and some names like Doyle, MacIvor are said to be Viking. There was a great discovery of Viking homes in Fishamble street back in the early 90s when the street was dug up for a hotel. I remember seeing it on site and I think it was all brought to the Museum in Kildare Street. It showed that the early Dublin homes were influenced by Viking design and were not the circular native Irish style.
Maybe CDfm can dig out :pac: the details of this.

Carlos_Ray

I know very few Dubliners that can trace their family tree back a hundred years without finding relatives from elsewhere in Ireland. Indeed a huge amount of Dubliners have at least one parent from a different county. In many cases its both parents. The frequency increases when you take into consideration grandparents and great-grandparents.

IMO Dublin has always been heavily influenced by different areas all over the island. It therefore is a better representation of the entire nation, than somwehere like , lets say Limerick, which is far more parochial.

CDfm

Brian reclaims the Hawk for Ireland

MingulayJohnny

I'm going by stories told by native Americans first hand , based on Lakota & Cree oral traditions. There's also an American archaeologist who specialises in the 'Celtic'\American connection. I've forgotten his name and my search abilities are limited in work atm. I'll post a link up later.

brianthebard

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

It is entirely possible that this hair style would have came about spontaneously. It's worth noting also that there is also the possibility that the ancient Irish were trading with and interbreeding with native American tribes. This could have lead to a sharing of customs & language( algonquin ).

It is a faint possibility but I don't think it should be entertained as a serious historical theory atm, there is no evidence to suggest this was happening that I'm aware of. This is off topic but I'm interested so if you have an info on this stick it up.