GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1996-01 > 0820980498


From: Stewart L Baldwin < >
Subject: Re: Brian Boru
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 02:08:18 GMT


Tom Camfield ( ) wrote:
: In article < >, "Jeffrey T.
: Chipman" < > wrote:

: > Weis in AR7 line 175 states that the ancestry of Brian Boru, d. 1014,
: > usurper of the high kingship of Ireland, is unproven. What if anything
: > is known about his ancestry?

: In "The Genealogist," v. I, no. 1 (1980), David H. Kelley gives an ancestry
: of Brian Boru on p. 22:

: THE DALCASSIANS (MUNSTER)...subsequent kings of Munster and of Ireland but
: a line not of major importance until the 10th century... briefly, it is:

: 1. Conall
: 2. Tal Cass (brother of Sain Maclaisre)
: 3. Blat (whose brother Setna was father of Mainchine, Bishop of Limerick)
: 4. Cairthenn Find
: 5. Eochu Ballderg
: 6. Conall, brother of Saint Breacan
: 7. Aed
: 8. Caidlene/Cathal
: 9. Tairdelbach
: 10. Mathgamain, brother of Saint Flannan.
: 11. Anluan
: 12. Corcc
: 13. Lachtnae
: 14. Lorccan
: 15. Cennetig m. Be Bind, d/o Aurchad of West Connacht
: 16. Brian Borama/Boroimhe/Boru "of the Tributes"...who rose from king of
: the Dalcassians to king of Munster and eventually usurped the high kingship
: of Ireland, b. 940.

: Kelley's article is titled "The Ancestry of Eve of Leinster" and deals with
: some 14 lines of ancient Irish descent (including, individually, up to 29
: generations), all connected, and is certainly a MUST for anyone stomping
: about in this neck of the woods in those ancient times.

: I would suggest locating the article and requesting a reprint. I know it is
: available at the NEHGS library in Boston, and one quite likely can find it
: closer to home.

: --
: Tom Camfield -

Unfortunately, in most cases, the experts on Irish history have
not yet studied the early Irish genealogies in enough detail to
say at exactly what generation they become historical. The
writers who concocted the phony "Milesian" genealogies used a
large amount of genuine genealogical tradition for the later
generations, with the result that it is often not possible to
tell where the pseudohistory ends and the genuine genealogy
begins (although it is a good bet that 99 percent of the pre-
fifth century material is false). The article by Kelley on the
ancestry of Eve of Leinster should be read with this in mind.
While most of the ancestries given in Kelley's article will
probably stand the test of time, more detailed studies on the
individual families will probably show that the earlier
generations have to be discarded in some cases.

Brian Boru's genealogy is one of these, because it has been
proven that the earlier generations in his genealogy were a
deliberate falsification, done to hide the fact that Brian was
descended from one of the minor septs of Ireland, rather than
from the illustrious Eoganachta (whose genealogy seems to have
been itself falsified at an earlier date - see Sproule's article
cited below).

Brian was descended from the minor sept called the Deisi, and in
fact came from a branch of the Deisi called "In Deis Becc", which
could be translated "little Deisi". "In Deis Becc" was divided
into two sections, "In Deis Deiscirt", and "In Deis Tuascairt",
of which Brian belonged to a branch of the latter called "Ui
Toirdelbaig", named after Toirdelbach, an ancestor who lived in
the eighth century. The first member of Ui Toirdelbaig to become
even a minor king was Lorcan, Brian's grandfather, but the
family's fortunes rose swiftly after that to become one of the
most poweful in Ireland.

It was not good press for such a prominent dynasty of rulers to
be descended from such an obscure family, so they did what was
apparently common practice. They faked their own genealogy. A
genealogy was invented for them which tied into the Eoganact
family so far back that it was centuries beyond human memory, and
they then even gave themselves a new name, "Dal Chais" (or "Dal
Cais"), after their new phony ancestor. Fortunately for modern
scholarship, they did not cover their tracks well enough, and
enough solid evidence survives to convict them of this act of
pedigree faking (which to them was probably just good politics).

[Side note: This kind of pedigree faking is exactly the kind of
thing I was referring to when I discussed my skepticism of the
very early Celtic pedigrees in the "Old King Cole" thread.]

So, where does the fiction end and the history begin? That is a
tough one. The earliest ancestor of Brian who is anything more
than a name was his grandfather Lorcan, but there seems to be no
reason to doubt the genealogy back to Toirdelbach (8th century),
after whom the sept of Ui Toirdelbaig was named. Some of the
generations before Toirdelbach might even be genuine, but it is
difficult to tell where the real genealogy ends and the phony
link with the Eoganachta begins. Maybe future research will
clear this up.

Suggested references:

1. "Brian Boruma, King of Ireland", by John Ryan, in "North
Munster Studies" (Limerick, 1967), pp. 355-374.

2. "Origins of the Eoganachta", by David Sproule, in the journal
"Eriu", vol. 35 (Dublin, 1984), pp. 31-37.

3. "Dal Cais - Church and Dynasty", by Donncha O Corrain, in
"Eriu", vol. 24 (1973), pp. 52-63.

4. "Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae", ed. by M. A. O'Brien,
(Dublin, 1962), "volume 1" (There was never a second volume, as
far as I know.)

Stewart Baldwin


Note: Spellings of the names are inconsistent from one source
to the other. The Irish names often have accents not shown here.

This thread: