DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives
Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2009-01 > 1231394392
From:
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Connachta Origins of M222
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:59:52 EST
In a message dated 1/7/2009 1:24:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,
writes:
As for Connacht, when was it named for the Connachta? I understand the older
versions name is Cóiced Ol nEchmacht the land of Fir Ol nEchmacht an was so
called until the early historic era (c.5th-7th centuries A.D.).
O'Rahilly has a little on this. He does say it's the older name for
Connacht (Fir OL nEchmacht), but also says no one knows what it means. Another name
used was Necmacht. He says it's possible the word is connected to the
Nagnatae of Ptolemy but it's difficult to prove one way or the other. The first
historical king of Connacht was Nath I (ob. 445).
Tirechan in his memoir of St. Patrick represents the 'sons of Brion as
dwelling at Selca, near Tulsk, Co. Roscommon, a few miles to the south-west of
Cruachain (Rathcroghan).
the Ui Briuin first rose to power under Daui Galach, 482-502, the first
descendant of Brian to become king of Connacht. Apparently the earlier
historical kings of Connacth were Ui Fiachrach (following Nath I).
There are kings of Connacht in the king lists prior to Nath I but O'Rahilly
regards them as unhistorical. Elsewhere in the book he talks about the
Laginian conquest of Connacht which he regarded as occurring prior to the conquest
of the northern goidels moving west from the midlands.
There surely is not a lot of meat on these bones.
John
.
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
This thread: