Speculation On The Real Origin Of The Uí Briúin Aí

[Webmaster]

Updated: 2020-Dec-13

Traditionally, the 3 major Uí Briúin septs have been attributed to 3 brothers who lived in the second half of the 5th century AD:

1. Dau Tengae Umae - Uí Briúin Seóla
2. Fergnóe - Uí Briúin Bréifne
3. Eóchaid Tírmchárna - Uí Briúin Aí

However, the Y-DNA clearly indicates this is not possible. The Uí Briúin Seóla and Uí Briúin Bréifne surnames are showing up under the R1b-A260 clade, so Dau Tengae Umae and Fergnóe being brothers is almost guaranteed. But the Uí Briúin Aí surnames are showing up in the parallel R1b-BY18120 and R1b-FT12117 clades. This clearly indicates that Eóchaid Tírmchárna could not have been a brother to Dau Tengae Umae and Fergnóe.

The genealogies aside, the records have hints scattered throughout them that this was known:

The Age of Christ, 499 [rectè 504].
The battle of Seaghaisᵒ [was fought] by Muircheartach mac Earca against Duach Teangumhaᵖ, King of Connaught. The cause of the battle was this, viz.: Muircheartach was a guarantee between the King and Eochaidh Tirmcharna, his brother, and Eochaidh was taken prisoner against the protection of Muircheartach. In proof of which Ceannfaeladhᶣ said:

The battle of Seaghais; a certain womanʳ caused it; red blood was over lances,
By Duiseach, daughter of Duach.
The battle of Dealga, the battle of Mucramha, and the battle of Tuaim-Drubha,
With the battle of Seaghais, wherein fell Duach Teangumha.

ʳ A certain woman: i. e. Duiseach. She was the wife of Muircheartach mac Earca, whom she incited to fight this battle against her father, Duach Teangumha, because he had made a prisoner of her foster-father, Eochaidh Tirmcharna, in violation of her husband's guarantee. See Book Of Lecan, fol. 195, b.

[ Annals Of The Four Masters ]

“Muircheartach was a guarantee between the King and Eochaidh Tirmcharna, his brother...” There is ambiguity as to who is a brother to whom in this phrase. I think that many of the errors in the records are due to conflation. It is possible that the Muirchertach mac Ercca in this entry is NOT the Uí Néill king, but a different man entirely. This is somewhat corroborated by the annotation where Eóchaid Tírmchárna is referred to as Duaibsech's foster-father, NOT her uncle, which he would be if he was Dau Tengae Umae's brother. If Muirchertach mac Ercca and Eóchaid Tírmchárna were full brothers, then the Y-DNA clearly indicates THIS Muirchertach mac Ercca was not Uí Néill, but rather Uí Briúin. This is by no means clear cut, but it is suggestive.

Then there is the following unique phrasing:

The Age of Christ, 535.
The eighth year of Tuathal. The church of Doire-Calgaighˢ was founded by Colum Cille, the place having been granted to him by his own tribeᵗ, i. e. the race of Conall Gulban, son of Niall.

The Age of Christ, 574.
The seventh year of Aedh. The killing of Aedh, son of Eochaidh Tirincharnaᶣ, by the Ui-Briuin.

The Age of Christ, 833.
Suibhue, son of Artrach, lord of Mughdhorna, was killed by his own tribe.

The Age of Christ, 962.
Muircheartach Ua Canannain, lord of Cinel-Conaill, was killed by his own tribe.

The Age of Christ, 965.
Aedh Ua hAitidhe, King of Ui-Eathach-Cobha, was killed by his own tribe.

The Age of Christ, 1005.
Mael-na-mbo, lord of Ui-Ceinnsealaigh, was killed by his own tribe.

[ Annals Of The Four Masters ]

In all cases but the one, the phrase is “by his own tribe”. Yet the death of Áed son of Eóchaid Tírmchárna is noted as “by the Ui-Briuin”; but traditionally he was supposedly one the Uí Briúin. Áed was only one generation after the 3 men named as the progenitors of the 3 Uí Briúin septs, so there would be no reason to think of the Uí Briúin main lineage as NOT being his own tribe, unless they really were not.

From the Book Of Rights:

The Ui Briuin and Siol Muireadhaigh and the Ui Fiachrach and the Cineal Aedha are free tribes, and they are equally noble as the king, and they do not go upon an expedition or hosting except for pay; and they do not go into battle with the king but for reward; and if they be killed, and upon their being killed, the king is bound to give eric to their king; and when the kingdom [of Connacht] does not belong to the race of Fiachra or Aedh or Guaire, the best man of them is privileged to sit by the right shoulder of the King of Connacht.

Note the clear distinction between the Uí Briúin and the Síl Muiredaig, the dominate family of the Uí Briúin Aí. It could be argued that this is because of the increased power of the Síl Muiredaig, but it is telling nonetheless. The second distinction between the "Ui Fiachrach and the Cineal Aedha" does dilute this first distinction somewhat, if the Cenél Áeda being referred to is that of the Uí Fiachrach Aidne that produced the O’Shaughnessys, as seems to be implied subsequently.

But from the Rawlinson B 502 genealogies:

[747] Cóic mc la h-Eochaid Mugmedón .i. Niall a quo Úi Néill tuaiscirt & deiscirt, Brian a quo Úi Briúin & Síl Muredaich, Fiachra Foltsnáithech a quo Úi Fiachrach, Ailill, Fergus Cáechán.

Here the distinction is clear cut. And again, it is telling that there is a deliberate distinction between the Uí Briúin and the Síl Muiredaig. No such distinction between the Uí Fiachrach Aidne and Muaide is made, nor within the Uí Fiachrach Aidne, and even the Uí Néill are merely called the northern and southern (tuaiscirt & deiscirt) septs. Only the Uí Briúin and the Síl Muiredaig are referred to by 2 distinct dynastic/tribal names.

The final hint comes from the Book Of Ballymote, which has the following structure for the Uí Briúin:

1. Uí Briúin Seóla
2. Uí Briúin Bréifne
3. Genelach O nEarca Cein
4. Uí Briúin Aí

The Ó nErcca Cein are placed before the Uí Briúin Aí and have a very abbreviated genealogy. Further, they are not descended from the same son of Eógan Sríab, Muiredach Máel, as the 3 main septs are shown. Instead, they descend from a second son of Eógan Sríab, Cruitine. So why would they be inserted in the middle of the descendants of Muiredach Máel? One could argue it was just scribal sloppiness, but the Ercca cland name gives one pause when considering the story of Muirchertach mac Ercca slaying his father-in-law Dau Tengae Umae over the imprisonment of Eóchaid Tírmchárna.

So it is not unreasonable to speculate that strange break was caused by an abrupt change to the original genealogy of the Uí Briúin Aí. Remember, copying manuscripts was a very manual labor intensive process, and the freedom we enjoy today of cutting and pasting documents together did not exist back when these manuscripts were copied. So any major changes would not involve the moving around of significant blocks of text, but rather a quick change of the text localized to the place where the change was needed. Essentially, it would look exactly how the Book Of Ballymote looks like for the Uí Briúin.

Now, looking at the age estimates for the key clades:

Code: Select all

    R1b-A259:		185 AD        434 AD        661 AD
    R1b-A260:		253 AD        506 AD        741 AD
    R1b-BY18120:	400 AD        731 AD        1048 AD

it is clear that the Uí Briúin Aí had split away from the Uí Briúin Seóla and the Uí Briúin Bréifne line before circa 506 AD. This is around the time frame of Fergus, the father of Dau Tengae Umae, Fergnóe, and allegedly Eóchaid Tírmchárna; so it is possible he was the progenitor of R1b-A260. As posted elsewhere, Eógan Sríab could easily be the progenitor of R1b-A259. Then Eógan Sríab having two sons, Muiredach Máel and Cruitine, both being R1b-A259+, but whose lineages diverge thereafter is very plausible; with the main Uí Briúin lineage continuing down to Fergus, where it split into the Uí Briúin Seóla and the Uí Briúin Bréifne septs.

The Cruitine line then could have split into R1b-BY18120, R1b-FT12117, and possibly other clades. Exactly how Muiredach Muillethan plays into those clades is unclear as of yet, although R1b-BY18120 clearly contains the Uí Conchobair lineages. There is also the possibility there was a conflation between Muiredach Máel and Muiredach Muillethan given how the scribes used shorthand like Muiredach M. in their manuscripts, so that the Síl Muiredaig MAY have originally been named after Muiredach Máel. But to be clear, all of this is pure speculation at this point.

None of these records in and of themselves are conclusive by any means, but taken altogether in combination with the clade age estimates, they do present a very plausible explanation that fits the known facts quite well. Much more data is needed to arrive at a definitive conclusion, but this appears to be a good working hypothesis for now.