Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Was Dublin ever Irish?

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Doozie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭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.


  • #53
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #54
    Doozie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭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?


  • #55
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭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 . . .


  • #56
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #57
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


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


  • #58
    Doozie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭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.


  • #59
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #60
    Doozie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #62
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭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 B) 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.


  • #63
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭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.


  • #64
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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 B) 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?


  • #65
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #66
    Enkidu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    depaly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭depaly


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

    - Louis McNeice


  • #68
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


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


Advertisement