For this week, discuss various historians’ views on the economy, society and culture of the Irish. What did you learn about Irish society and is there anything you can highlight as being different from early modern English society? How do different historians portray Irish society – as backward or primitive or as part of an ancient, learned culture? Do any of your readings use a negative /celebratory / neutral tone?
Agriculture:
In ‘’Barbarisme and Obdurate wilfulnesse’ agricultural materialism, animal welfare and Irish studies’ by Willy Maley, the practice of ploughing the land in Irish society is debated. Through this, I understand that the common practice of ploughing was ‘ploughing by the tail’ which meant that a short plough was attached to the tail of a horse so it could be pulled along. This, it is reasoned, is effective due to the lightness of Irish horses, in comparison to the heaviness of English horses, and due to the quality of Irish soil. This practice was outlawed in 1634 by Lord Deputy Thomas Wentworth which is seen by Animal Historians as one of the first step towards animal welfare practices in English speaking lands but is viewed differently by Imperialists. The ban implemented by the English can be seen as an imperialist move because it shows the English attempting to eradicate Irish methods in favour of the more ‘civilised’ English practice.The ban was seen as economically beneficial for the English Crown because of the financial gains made through the fines levied against those who refused to give up the practice.
This ban is a first step in the confiscation of land under the guise of agricultural improvements, playing again into the idea that the Irish need the English to help them improve their agricultural procedures because they are inferior in knowledge and are barbaric. However, if as was argued at the time the Irish horse breeds were too small for the harness, and that it would hinder its ability to breathe, then it is argued that the change was made solely based on the idea that the English way was best, and no attention was paid to the fact that the Irish had developed their methods based on their knowledge of the need of the horse which was better than the knowledge of the English on this breed.
‘Gaelic Society and Economy’ by Kenneth Nicholls further illustrates the Irish agricultural process as being that of Winter corn, Spring corn and fallow as part of a three source rotation in the long-fallow system. He explains that the Irish often manure the lands with sand and seaweed when it was abundant. He also explains that Irish farms were unenclosed which stands in sharp contrast with the practices common in England at the time and further illuminates the practices of landholding in Ireland.
Poets and Historical Tradition:
‘Gaelic Polity and Cultural Identity’ by J.A. Watts outlines how history was kept alive and presented by the Irish poets. Poets was a hereditary position with a noble patron. They were bound to establish the honour of the patron, and pass their knowledge down to their successor. They preserved the genealogy, glorified success in battle and gave their patron courage before a battle through poems of their previous successes. Their focus on success in battle and martial exploits shows that military success and physical prowess were important facets in creating aristocratic honour.
Fosterage:
J.A. Watts discusses the practice of fosterage in Gaelic society in ‘Gaelic Polity’. He explains that this is a process by which a son is given into the care of another family with whom the chief would like to strengthen or create a strong bond. It is seen as a way to cement a long term alliance, and to tie them to yours through an almost familial bond. The Anglo-Irish took this practice up to help them create their alliances in Irish society. It is sometimes seen as a customary practice, where certain families always foster to each other.
Diet:
Watts also describes the diet in Ireland, particularly that of the O’Neills. It is one based mainly on meat from oxen, cows and good horses. What you drank was based on social standing- good lords would drink milk, others would drink beef broth and common people would drink water. Oats were used to supplement the diet of the Irish, with oatcakes sometimes being given as a gift. There was no wheat grown in Ireland, so they would not eat things such as bread as the English were used to. The English residing in Ireland went out of their way to plant wheat so that they could have bread instead of acclimatising the Irish diet.
Economy:
‘Gaelic Society and Economy’ by Kenneth Nicholls describes the Irish economy as being that of predominantly pastoral with the aid of trade. He suggests that pastoral was the main part of the Irish economy because of the report of Perelhos who had witnessed the aftermath of crop failure in 1397 due to famine. He explains that they grew products such as flax, oats and malt. Hunting was a factor in Irish economy and society because it gave them access to venison and birds as a source of food, but it also gave them hides and furs to trade. This feeds into the aspect of trade in the Irish economy: the main exports they had were fur (most valuably the Pine Marten), hides, cloth, horse breeds and sheepskin. Their main imports were wine, iron and salt. Cattle were seen as the main source of mobile wealth because they provided the Irish with meat, hide, milk, butter, cheese and sour curds. Fisheries were also an economic resource for trade and as a source of employment, whilst also providing revenue to local lords. Colin Breen in ‘The maritime cultural landscape in medieval Gaelic Ireland’ discusses how shell-fish and fish were a large export factor for the Irish lords. He also explains that, unlike the English, the Irish did not maintain their own fleet for trading- they simply chartered boats from abroad to help with their trading.
Kenneth Nicholls paints Irish society as backwards and perhaps a bit primitive. He describes them as not caring for legitimacy and their succession practices as being the root cause in instability within society. He also paints Irish society as having ‘endemic disorder’. I really noticed how he painted the Irish in a negative light when he took an English source at face value, without discussing the inherent bias in it. He suggests that the Irish men had a ‘distaste’ for manual labour because the English source said this, however the English were always viewing Irish society negatively, and Nicholls should have explained this.
‘Dung beetles and the ‘Vulgar Traditions’: applying Folkloric sources and methods to Early Modern Ireland’ by Sarah Covington made me acknowledge that history is somewhat elitist in the way that sources have been used. Folkloric traditions are seen as a non-legitimate, or non-authoritative source because they deal in legends and mythology. This chapter discusses the importance of them because they can help to understand more about society, but some historians do not think so and actively ignore them as a result. Ignoring these sources means some information can become lost to time, or not fully explored because they are seen as unviable as an authoritative source of information.
Charmain this is a wonderful post, thank you. There is so much here I could pick up on (and we will in class) but also I love the breadth of your reading (including methods and sources) and your analysis of Nicholls. You are absolutely right there – despite his work on Irish society being so central to later works, he still reads sources somewhat without question. Well done on highlighting that! And your comments about folk-lore /’traditional’ history … great!
I could talk all day about agricultural practices … but I won’t bore you completely! Again, yes, your interpretation of the various arguments is correct – Animal Studies scholars do interpret it as that and no doubt some of the English refer to ploughing by the tail as a cruel practice. But that largely stems from their desire to further criticise a practice they perceived to be backward and primitive, and used by a people who were barbaric. And yes, Irish horses were smaller – they are referred to as ‘garrons’ in some sources. You also make an excellent point at the end about unenclosed land (I’ve a student writing her entire PhD on enclosure in Ireland, more or less). Diet and trade are also directly linked to agriculture (and did you notice they import salt?) and a lovely point about Irish shipping – something that has always intrigued me about Irish society was that they did not keep large fleets of their own vessels. Perhaps we will get to that in class. Fosterage and poets – excellent, other aspects of Irish society that early modern Englishmen did not quite comprehend.
‘Land and the People C.1600’- R.A. Butlin
Butlin describes the geographical character and population of Ireland; noting how the assessment of the climate, vegetation, and physio-geography of Ireland was recorded in relation to the conduct of English military campaigns. Butlin notes how the English perceived Irish landscapes- that of bogs, woods, and mountains- as extensive havens of refuge for outlaws and rebels. Thus, accounts of their size and inaccessibility were prone to exaggeration. This was interesting for me as I could see the similarities of perspectives that were also held for Scotland in the era of Wallace and Bruce. Butlin states that large swathes of the island were still defined by a way of life that was otherworldly to the English observers. The cultural, social, religious, and economic customs of Ireland were so contrasting to the English that they were, in part, used as a means of justification for a ‘civilisation’ effort and anglicisation. It is important to note that much of the geographical evidence for Ireland during this era derives from the English, therefore, it can be difficult to identify between a ‘genuine’ Ireland and the Ireland as viewed through the eyes of statesmen, soldiers, officials, and settlers.
‘Gaelic Polity and Cultural Identity’- J.A. Watt:
Watt discusses the significance of the role played by Irish poets, a role that was misunderstood by the New English. Far from simply poetry, Watt notes how Irish bards recorded events and genealogy. Furthermore, the role was hereditary with the knowledge as well as the role being passed on to kin. Another fascinating mark of Irish society that Watt discusses is the practice of fosterage; essentially an act of solidifying an alliance by one family taking another’s son into care. As with other scholars, such as Clarke, Watt states that despite a steady trickle of money into Gaelic Ireland, its economy tended to be a pastoral, subsistence one. Interestingly, agriculturally speaking, wheat was not grown on the island thus bread was not a common staple. Furthermore, it was interesting to read the somewhat blameful and self-depreciative perspective; “Ireland and her self-inflicted wounds; instead of uniting to expel the foreigner, rivalry among the Gaelic Irish themselves has brought ruin to the whole country.”
‘The Irish Economy, 1600-60’- Aidan Clarke
Clarke examines the Irish economy from 1600 to 1660 which he describes as “exceptional in a number of respects.” Essentially, the Irish economy was shaped by the connection with England in two definitive ways: economic activity was affected by government policies directly and, secondly, the use of Irish resources was confined by policies structured for England with no regards to their effect on Ireland. Clarke notes how land was the primary source of possession and the resultant struggle for its ownership was vastly apparent in the sixty-year span discussed in the chapter. It was not Ireland that prospered, but those who had control of Irish resources. In 1600 much of the land was owned by the Irish and much of the rest was owned by long-established colonists. Yet, by 1641 mass transfers from Irish to New English owners created a roughly even split of distribution in which around a third was owned by the Irish, the Old English, and the New English. From 1660, the greater part of Ireland was in the hands of the New English. Clarke offers a seemingly appreciative perspective of conquest whilst simultaneously acknowledging the unfortunate situation of the Irish; stating that the “conquest was progressive, because it loosened traditional restraints upon the use of land and allowed freer responses to market conditions; but the economic gains accrued to individuals, while the social cost was borne by the conquered community.”
This is great Lewis, a lovely succinct summary/analysis of your reading. You pick up on fosterage too which is great while also touching on the link between landscape, climate, and vegetation, and agriculture and economy – a connection the English were not able to grasp. Again you are able to see the pitfalls of relying only on English accounts (and draw a lovely parallel with accounts of Scotland) as their perception of Ireland was vital to their justification for being there. Your summary of Clarke is excellent and you raise some very important points: 1) the ‘colonial’ treatment of Ireland and its resources 2) the ownership of land 3) the repercussions of changing landownership for the Irish. We will touch on all those themes throughout the module.
My reading was primarily between Farrell (The ‘mere’ Irish), Nichols (Gaelic society and economy) and Connolly (Contested island). Although the main dispute I identified was between Farrell and Nichols as both had similar talking points but different interpretations. Essentially Nichols appears to subscribe to the idea that the Irish were backwards and could be considered at least a semi-nomadic people, at least from an economic standpoint. Farrell rejects this and says that Irish society was in many ways optimized for the land they held and the society that sprung up from it was effective in managing it. I think found Farrell’s argument more persuasive here as he is more open about questioning English sources and backs up much of his arguments with data. What is clear throughout the different sources is the rich and unique culture of Ireland.
The question I found most intriguing was the perception of Ireland as a semi-nomadic society. Farrell rejects this idea as a biproduct of English bias and misunderstanding and delves into nuances of Irish culture and geographic features that show that Irish pastoral farming was much easier to justify as a practical means to engage in agriculture. He even points out that 90% of arable land in Ireland today is dedicated to livestock, supporting the idea that the native Irish weren’t just backwards. Pastoral farming was also more practical in times of instability and war as it was easier for displaced people to move with the herd and as such still retain some measure of their livelihood. They could also avoid conflict areas if needed, an option that isn’t possible for many settled crop farmers who would likely have their crops requisitioned or burned. Also, they provided a moving food source to armies, and could play the traditional role of beasts of burden carrying baggage trains.
I found the level that class and status played in Ireland also very intriguing. Connolly talks about what Farrell refers to as the ‘learned’ class, which was a hereditary caste made up of poets, doctors, jurors and genealogists. The first of those playing an important cultural and PR role and the last being very important in keeping track of the lineages and septs that dominated Irish aristocracy. These classes would have been given their own land free of most obligations to the lord that was to be expected of a typical landowner, as their services were considered important and sacred enough to warrant a high status. The English and Scottish would’ve found this strange no doubt.
The different castes in society were generally expected to eat different foods, which isn’t totally uncommon even today, but it was far more rigid and culturally ingrained that one would think. The diet appears to be largely corresponding to a society heavily based in pastoral farming: largely proteins from meats and dairy products; with crops being used somewhat sparingly as breads or brewed into alcohol. Part of me wonders if the primary sources that describe some Irish as having blessed with longevity and Irish warriors being physically imposing has something to do with this high-protein diet…
Also, Farrell addresses rife English and Scottish misconceptions in Irish culture but none more so than property rights and land ownership. Irish landownership is described as sort of a vessel in which to accommodate grazing herds of cattle, and as such land ownership did not have rigid borders and were much more fluid; generally, split between lowland and upland areas for summer and winter grazing. This means that over a whole kingdom, land ownership would wax and wane around a core, loyal territory.
Cattle was an important measure of wealth, not necessarily land. Cattle was owned by the lord and rented out to followers and sub-rented thereafter, which explains why so many Irish landowners could still get by even if they owned a piece of land that was unsustainably small, which was common with the inheritance laws that would split land between inheritors.
The English and Scottish would have misunderstood Irish society and deemed it barbarous. It is under no doubt that the English used these conceptions as a basis for colonialization as the Irish needed ‘civilizing’. It is also clear to me that many of these reports were a mix of active smear-campaigning and genuine misunderstanding. However, it is unclear how much was down to one or the other and likely a concoction of both.
In terms of theory, Farrell talks about approaching this period from a Marxist standpoint of superstructure and bases, although asks not to hold on to this idea too rigidly, but rather keep them in mind when addressing Irish society here and in the transition to plantation. It asks to what extent is the superstructure (Irish societal and cultural structure), dependent on the economic base (Pastoral/trade to plantation/colonial economies). This is clearer when Farrell talks about the breakdown of the lands and farming systems and makes the argument that the Irish methods of inheritance was actually effective at maximizing the efficiency of their pastoral base. But he also shows evidence that the traditional class system in Ireland, that was economically swept aside when plantations were introduced, was still respected and followed by the Gaelic Irish, even if there was little material gain to be had in clinging on to it. Ultimately, we should keep this Marxist model in mind but not subscribe fully to it; as the economy is obviously important to a society and its structure, but to adopt the idea rigidly is to ignore the unpredictability of human agency. The model put forth here is the one I would say I agree with when looking at this period as it is very flexible. I found this an interesting idea as I’m sure many of us have pondered how much of our lives are spent with economic viability as a backdrop to our beliefs and actions.
My reading mainly looked into Maritime activity an how that became a centre for settlements along the coast of Ireland in land controlled by the English and in Gaelic Ireland
Colin Breen, ‘The Maritime Cultural Landscape in Medieval Gaelic Ireland’
State papers and annalistic do not mention Western seaboards so it is often mistaken that they were uninhabited, however, Western Lordships were actually involved with Large-scale maritime activity and would take into account wind, tides and other environmental factors when settling by the sea.
Breen states that there were 4 essential facets of maritime cultural landscape – settlement, communication, exploitation and defence.
The East coast was an English controlled areas so more information on how they were operated are known. Origins of this system can be traced back to Anglo-Norman activity as the harbours and landing places were selected for the development of ports and be the centre of economic activity. Although some of these areas were based on Viking coastal towns and where they had discovered most suitable to land and settle.
Ports represented a dynamic commercial and political links. Therefore, the ports in the east of Ireland represented an economic border along the Irish sea.
Gaelic Ireland activity is less known due to the lack of primary sources that cover this, however, there is archaeological evidence to suggest there was maritime activity. Despite the suggestion that a centralised bureaucratic port system was largely absent, there was a less formularised maritime control system in place. This was a product of multi-regional independent developments of Gaelic overlords, they were aware of the potential worth of the maritime economy and were actively engaging in exploiting it. Furthermore, they had coastal frontiers, settlements and the defence tended to be centred around the maritime zone. Showing that the Gaelic overlords were aware of the advantages the sea could provide their settlements – not only for food but for economic benefits.
Settlements located by the sea were beneficial for multiple reasons. Sea offered resources such as consumption and export (fish and shellfish being the most important). Large mammals that inhabited these areas could be used for multiple resources such as skins, oils, food and occasionally ivory. Seabirds supplied eggs and could also be used as a food source. Seaweed fertilised soils and provided food. Sand and shells could be used as building material and in a dyeing process.
Tower houses were probably the biggest indictor of settlement in the Gaelic maritime landscape and served as a stronghold and administrative centre, which would often be surrounded by an agglomerated village- like settlement. Furthermore, the helped with defence as they were an overt demonstration of power and would have dominated the localised landscape, however did not hold heavy armament which could be used against foreign or enemy shipping but could offer a visual prospect over fishing grounds. Control was placed on monitoring and organising outside activities within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gaelic lord.
There was a capitalisation of fishing fleets in Gaelic Ireland as Spaniards paid wanting to fish in Kenmare, where the Kenmare Fishery was situated. There is also evidence to suggest that France also took part in Irish fisheries. Furthermore, Gaelic Irish would exchange fish with foreign merchants in exchange for wine, showing evidence of trade with foreign ships. Archaeologists have also found evidence of fishing trap and fish-holding pods, showing a larger scale of fishing for trade, rather than just food for the settlement.
A Spanish Officer described Ireland as ‘mountainous but no trees.. all I can see are straw huts and these are small.’ This is most likely referring to a type of house called ‘creat’ which were small, round. One-room houses made of sods and coarse grass.
My reading this week primarily focused on the Maritime Culture and landscape of Ireland.
Colin Breen in “maritime Cultural Landscape in Medieval Gaelic Ireland” discusses how historians of the past have tended, when examining Irish maritime culture during this period, to focus primarily on the regions under heavy English control and influence. He explains that this is due to many of the surviving documentation coming from English sources themselves and thus fail to explain and shed light on the west coast leaving many to believe that it was largely ‘uninhabited and underdeveloped’. However, thanks to modern archaeological evidence and piecing together of texts it can be seen that there was actually a complex series of lordships and sub-lordships with a thriving coastal frontier.
The English controlled east coast was structured under a hierarchical port structure all falling under the central control of the English crown and those it delegated certain responsibilities to within Ireland. On the other hand, the structure in place within Gaelic Ireland was instead one based on multi regional Gaelic overlords, each utilising the environment of their land for resources and power.
Breen alongside john Raven expand on these series of overlordship within “maritime Lordship in Late-medieval Gaelic Ireland”. They explain with the backdrop of the Bruce invasion of 1315, the Great famine in Europe 1315-17, agricultural decline in 1320-30s, widespread revolt and the black death in 1348, all played a part in the breaking down of barriers giving way to Gaelic lordships to emerge along the western coast. These lordships all held their own socio-political structures and autonomy however were not dissimilar in every aspect. Similarly, to argyll and western Scotland these territories did not bow down to one single king. instead they had a series of overlordships and sub-lordships within sub-lordships having varying levels of autonomy varying from area to area.
Overlordships used their ‘place and presence’ in order to justify their control of the area. This was accomplished through the occupation of castles and family lineage to legitimise their power. With many overlordships being artificially constructed in an attempt to justify lineage and landholding.
Lordships were organised to varying degrees with some being more similar to English and European ideals as a result of varying levels of interaction between them. However, many of these lordships saw certain family’s being having specialist functions, such as scholars, being versed in law, poets or even knowledge of medicine. One such example given is that of the O’Malleys who were renowned for their naval prowess.
The west coast was home to highly productive fishing grounds during this time, something the lords took advantage of, constructing castles and friaries along the western seaboard. With the expansion of the fishing industry on the western coast overlords sought to exploit this not through the resources being fished directly but instead implementing tolls on fishing in the area. One such example is that of the O’Driscolls charging a fee to anchor and shelter in their bays, with a tax of food and salt for the use of fishing grounds, with an added charge for the drying of fish within on shore facilities. It is noted that in 1569 there were in excess of 200 ships fishing out of the southwestern coast.
Despite the English seeing the Irish during this time as less civilised and less advanced, they in fact had strong links with mainland Europe, with many lords embarking on diplomatic missions into mainland Europe as well as journeys into Rome. This ideal of the Irish being lesser developed than the English was also noted through a lack of large vessels and frigates as noted by the English traveller Fynes Moryson. However, it is instead illustrated that the Irish simply had no need for such vessels and instead developed their own smaller traditional ships.
I want to focus mostly on the Gardiner & McNeill article on seaborne trade and commercial systems in and around Ireland. Gardiner and McNeill argue that two models of commerce can be applied to Ireland: the North Atlantic system (based primarily on trade of fish across Northern and North-Western European littoral zones based mostly barter transactions – no coinage or fixed towns and markets required) and the Anglo-continental system (more diverse in terms of goods traded – trade was tied to towns and coinage). Though Gardiner and McNeill do not go into detail on this, it is clear that the Anglo-continental system would have been considered more progressive (or “civilised”?) than the North Atlantic system which relied on nominal currencies or barter as opposed to coin money.
Instead of framing the trading relationship between Ireland and England or Europe as that of “savagery” vs “civilisation”, Gardiner and McNeill illuminate how salmon fishing would have created symbiotic relationships between Gaelic lords, the native Irish population and foreign traders. While it is true that the Gaelic lords relied on European merchants to provide them with luxury items, weapons and ammunition, the foreign traders likewise relied on the native population to provide them with salmon which they could not catch themselves due to the fact that they neither owned nor knew the lands and rivers of Ireland. The approach taken by Gardiner and McNeill constitutes quite a radical deviation from the normal, Anglo- or Euro-centric narrative in which Ireland is inferior and only a passive player in wider European systems of commerce. It may only be a matter of perspective, but the article very clearly demonstrates that Ireland played an active role in the North Atlantic trade by satisfying a specific demand instead of highlighting all the different ways in which English or European merchants provided the Irish with the goods they could not produce themselves. The demand for fish across Europe directly led to the commercialisation of trade with Gaelic Ireland.
Colin Breen and John Raven, too, highlight the fact that a number of Irish septs, instead of dealing only with their direct neighbours or being caught up with internal power struggles, actually engaged with other European nations through (fishing) trade and control of the fishing grounds off their coasts (‘Maritime Lordship in Late-Medieval Gaelic Ireland’, 2017).
Though the article explores Ulster’s trading relationships with Iceland, England and continental Europe at length, there is little on commerce between Ulster and the west of Scotland.
Drawing on a wide range of evidence including portolan charts, lists of havens and landing places, and archaeological and topographical studies of settlement patterns and resources, the article highlights the importance and involvement of the Gaelic hinterland in commercial networks across Ulster which had not been pursued by previous scholars. Gardiner and McNeill demonstrate that the Irish lords were more than able to recognise the salmon fisheries, fishing grounds off the shore and visiting merchants as an opportunity for profit. They also suggest that trade in and around Ireland did not occur as a result of the construction of castles and settlements, but that towns and especially markets developed on top of the North Atlantic model and already existing trade routes. I wonder to what extent this would apply also to the western Highlands and Isles of Scotland?