TRIBESReferences and Further Reading
Bromwich, Rachel. Trioedd Ynys Prydein. The Welsh Triads.
Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961.
Green, Miranda J. “6. Triplism and multiple images.” In Symbol
and Image in Celtic Religious Art, 169–205. London – New
York: Routledge, 1989.
Kelly, Fergus. A Guide to Early Irish Law (Early Irish Law
Series, vol. 3).Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Stud-
ies, 1988, pp. 284–285.
Meyer, Kuno. The Triads of Ireland (Todd Lecture Series,
vol.13).Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co.; London: Williams
& Norgate, 1906.
Sims-Williams, Patrick. “Thought, Word and Deed: An Irish
Triad.” Ériu29 (1978): 78–111.
See alsoLaw Tracts; Moral and Religious
Instruction; Wisdom Texts
TRIBES
Early Irish society is often referred to as tribal. The term
was and still is used by writers to describe the early
Irish socio-political organization based on the túath.
As a term to characterize Irish society, “tribe” has
passed in and out of favor among scholars— namely
due to the vagaries of its definition, but also because
of its perceived derogatory connotations.
In the nineteenth century, under Marxist and
Darwinian theories of social evolution, the term
“tribe” was used to place medieval Irish society within
an evolutionary model, identifying Ireland as prefeu-
dal, and thus inferior in its development. For early
scholars of Irish history, such as Orpen, Ireland did
appear to be a fragmented and tribal island, by which
was meant a system organized under local rule, with
each aggregate of people united by ties of blood or
belief in descent from a common ancestor. This does
bear some of the hallmarks of the túathsocial system,
but it could equally be said to reflect some of the
qualities of the smaller nonpolitical group, the fine,
which is a group of people of the same family.
Mac Néill, writing in 1919, believed that the term
“tribal” was inaccurate, even derogatory, and con-
sciously avoided using it. He felt that the term “tribe”
as a translation for túathsuggested that Ireland was
divided into numerous groups or clans, with a chief at
the head of each group and with all members of the
clan considering themselves to be of one blood. He
felt that this description of the túathwas at odds with
the evidence of the source material, which clearly dem-
onstrated a túath to be a territorial unit, brought
together under the rule of a rí(king), without a com-
mon ancestral bond or common ownership of land.
Binchy reintroduced “tribe” to early Irish historiog-
raphy in 1970 when he suggested that despite the
derogatory nature and vagueness attached to the term,
“tribe” could usefully be employed as a description of
Early Irish society, as long as one was specific in one’s
definition. For Binchy this meant “a primary aggregate
of people in a primitive or barbarous condition under
a headman or chief.” The tribal character of Irish soci-
ety was for Binchy embodied in the society portrayed
by the law tracts, which presented a fossilized picture
of Irish society corresponding to a period just prior to
the shift toward a dynastic political structure. He saw
the new dynastic families as having superimposed “a
whole series of ‘mesne’ kingdoms ruled by scions of
their own kindred” on the old tribal pattern. However,
despite this change he felt that at the most basic level
“the old tribal substratum still remained.”
Similarly, Byrne also employed “tribe” to describe
ancient Irish society, which for him was also exempli-
fied in the law tracts. He believed “tribe” was partic-
ularly useful for defining the process of change
whereby ancient tribal rule was being replaced by the
rise of dynastic rule. Thus, for Byrne, the Uí Néill
represented a new political principle, a change from
local tribal identity to a dynastic hierarchy, which was
embodied in the very form of their name. Names in
Uí,Cenél,Clann, and Sílall denoted descent from a
living ancestor within the historical period and
belonged to dynastic families, whereas names in
Maccu,Dercu,Corcu,Dál, and –rigedenoted older
tribal names.
This distinction has been followed by historians,
more recently by Charles-Edwards, who identifies the
disappearance of the Latin term gens(OImuccu) from
use in the sources with the change from a tribal system
to a dynastic system. His concept of tribe is similar to
that of Binchy and Byrne, where by “tribe” he means
a small political unit without a bureaucratic govern-
ment, but governed instead by existing social bonds.
Opposition remained, however, and Scott has
rejected both Binchy’s and Byrne’s use of “tribe” for
what he sees as the imprecision of their use and the
confusion and misinterpretation to which their defini-
tions can lead. Furthermore, although there can be little
doubt that dynastic and territorial kingship replaced
tribal kingship in medieval Ireland, the dates suggested
by historians for this transformation have ranged from
the late fifth to the eleventh century. The term “tribe”
thus implies the social structures prevalent in Ireland,
prior to the introduction of dynastic kingship, that were
based around the local and territorial rule of the túath,
which was not derived from ties of blood and was
administered through communal tradition rather than
a fixed bureaucratic structure.
MICHAEL BYRNES