Hi John, Apologies for the delay in following up, and thank you for your questions. When speaking about the Fe/ini, the Gaeil made no assumption of any descent from Fionn mac Cumhail or the Fianna ('Fenians'). Instead, in the historic period, the Fe/ini were believed to descend from Fe/inius Farsaid. As you know, the top of a tribe's pre-Christian Irish genealogy is often/ṡometimes the ancestor-god for that tribe. When we look at the top of the "official genealogy" for all the free-tribes of the Gaeil (it was unlawful to record the genealogies of the unfree tribes), we find Adam and Eve. Of course, that's the Christian "hat" for the genealogy. If we take off that hat from Adam down to Baat (Boath or Baath in the Bible) in Seathru/n Ce/itinn's (Keating's) Genealogies, or in Cu/ Choigcr/che O/ Cle/irigh's Book of Genealogies (many thanks for putting that on-line, by the way), or in Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh's Book of Genealogies, the first of the native tradition we run into is Fe/inius Farsaid "son of Baath." Fe/inius Farsaid is a few more generations down the line in Rawlinson B.502, perhaps indicating a lower level of control over the genealogies by the Ui/ Ne/ill at the time of the writing of Rawlinson B.502, 4 centuries earlier. Also in Rawlinson, we see the old genitive form of his name, Fo/eniusa Farsaid. So (according to these texts), all the free tribes (including Da/l Chuinn) descend from Fe/inius Farsaid. Various medieval and early modern texts have a lot to say about him, his art, his travels in the Mideast, his "bringing" of the Gaelic language from the Tower of Nimrod, etc. However, in footnote f on p. 85 of Early Irish History and Mythology, O'Rahilly writes: "... Be/rla Fe/ne, 'the language of the Fe/ne', suggested the creation of an eponymous Fe/inius Farsaid, who was supposed to have invented it..." In other words, O'Rahilly believed that Fe/inius Farsaid was not part of the original tradition, either as ancestor-god or man. Is it possible that the name of the original ancestor-god of the Fe/ini isn't preserved? Perhaps. But, if so, that's okay. The important thing is that the Fe/ini existed (exist) as a people, without regard to the name of their original ancestor-god or hero. Francis John Byrne points out in Irish Kings and High-Kings that "the usual word for the free population in the laws is Fe/ni, and the traditional law itself is called fe/nechas. The normal word elsewhere for the Irish is Goi/dil 'the Gaels' - a borrowing from the Welsh Gwyddyl, suggesting that the Irish had no common word for themselves until they came into contact with foreigners." So who were the Fe/ni before the Irish developed a common word for all of themselves? The word apparently didn't originally apply to all Irish, just some of them, or it would have been used instead of the exonyms Goi/dil, Scotti, and Ui/ Mi/leadh. So who did it apply to in its earliest conception? In the manuscript called Rawlinson B.502, we find an 8th Century version of the tale Tairired na nDeissi ('Expulsion of the Déisi') which tells of various encounters of the Déisi with the Laighin, Fothairt, Uí Bhairrche, Eoghanachta, Corcu Laoidhe, Osraige, and others. All of these were eventually claimed as branches of the Féini, but at the end of the tale, I noticed this past semester that the separate identity of the Fe/ini is still maintained: Is inund aimsirhi lotar na Deisse for Gabruan 7 Fene for Fid Mar 7 Fothairt for Gabruan sair. (Meyer, Kuno. "The Expulsion of the Dessi", an article in the magazine Y Cymmrodor. London: Society of Cymmrodorion, Volume XIV, 1901) And in this time, the Déisi went over Gabruan and the Féini went over Fid Már and the Fothairt went over Gabruan eastwards. The thing that made me notice this at all was Byrne's discussion of the Fe/ni on p. 106 of his book. As he notes there, the following statement was intended to describe Ireland in prehistoric times. It is the beginning of an 8th century A.D. saga preserved in a legal text compiled by an Uí Néill breitheamh ('jurist'): Batar trí prímcheinéla i nHére, .i. Féini 7 Ulaith 7 Gáilni .i. Laigin. (Byrne, p. 106) There were three primary kinship-groups in Ireland, i.e., the Féini, the Ulaidh, and the Gáilni, i.e., the Laighin. As we see, at the time of this manuscript, the Ulaidh and Laighin were still very much distinct from the Féini. They had relatively recently lost the plain of Meath and the kingship of Tara to the Uí Néill, a branch of the Da/l Chuinn or Connachta. Therefore, as Byrne points out, it's clear that the earliest uses of Féini, as here seen even in an 8th century A.D. Uí Néill context, are intended to mean the Da/l Chuinn (Connachta) and their branch called Uí Néill. So, to sum up. the Fe/ni were one of the most important peoples of Ireland at the dawn of Irish history. They are the direct ancestors of the Da/l Chuinn and Ui/ Ne/ill. Some have called attention to the possibility that the name of the Fe/ini developed from the name of the Gaulish Veneti of the Armorican Peninsula. Accordingly, if Fe/ni might possibly come from Veneti, I'm guessing that it could also possibly come from Veniconi / Venicnii, an obviously Q-Celtic word. But here we'd need an expert on the development of Archaic Irish to advise us. You noted that the root-word Conn (Da/l Chuinn, Connachta) might possibly be seen in the word Veniconi. Perhaps you're right. Similarly, it's generally agreed that the Irish words gom ('fool') and amada/n ('fool') both developed from different parts of the Indo-European root-word *gemadan, which is also the ancestor of the English word 'mad'. Therefore, I think it's possible that both "Fe/ni" and "Conn" developed from Veniconi. (Although, again, we'd need an expert to advise us.) Lastly, you mentioned that it might be possible to see the word Conn in the word Venicnii. I think you're right. For a very long time, the pronunciation rule in Irish has been to stick an Indo-European schwa in between any two consonants. Therefore, Venicnii could very well be pronounced Veniconii (with stress on the first syllable), and Veniconii could very well be spelled Venicnii without much damage to its pronunciation. A parallel would be the the pronunciation of the name of the goddess Brighid, roots of which are Barr-Righid (often translated as 'High-Queen') and whose tribe (or the tribe who claimed descent from her) are the Ui/ Bairrche. It's odd that O'Rahilly noted the Venikones in north Britain but ignored their obvious potential relationship to the Venicnii in northwest Ireland. This seems to be because he assumed (without much evidence) that Venikones and its variations were "merely bad corruptions" of Verturiones." (O'Rahilly, p. 382, footnote 2) Too bad he went that route. He was a master linguist and could have enlightened on all these points. Go raibh se/ seo cabhrach. / Hope this is helpful. Best, Jerry Cló an Druaidh / The Druid Press www.druidpress.com ________________________________ From: "Lochlan@aol.com" <Lochlan@aol.com> To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Sent: Wed, June 8, 2011 6:39:00 PM Subject: Re: [R-M222] Which Way Went R222? - help from Ptolemy? In a message dated 6/8/2011 11:46:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jerrykelly@att.net writes: So, we can discard any of those as the original name of any Celtic tribe who might have invaded. Da/l Chuinn isn't on Ptolemy's map, but the Da/l Chuinn are a branch of another people called the Fe/ini. Earlier spellings - Fe/ni, Fe/ne, etc. The etymological affinity of the name "Fe/ni" to the name of the Veneti, the tragic Gaulish tribe of Armorica, has long attracted attention. Jerry, a couple of questions. What establishes the Dal Cuinn as a branch of the Feni? Are we talking here of the Fenians of Irish mythology? Is there any dating for this cycle of Irish mythology? <But if we go back earlier, we find in 8th century documents that a distinction was made between the original Fe/ini and all the other Fe/ini-come-latelies. It appears that the original Fe/ini, as far as we can tell from the earliest tales and law-texts, consisted solely of the Da/l Chuinn, i.e., the Connachta and the Ui/ Ne/ill. What eighth century document is this? Is this what you're referring to in the firstJoh paragraph quoted? <The Vennicni sojourn on the west coast, and then, in order, the Rhobogdi towards the east. Is there anything there that could possibly, etymologically, develop into Fe/ni over time? Wish I were expert at the development of Common Celtic into P-Celtic and Q-Celtic, but I think there's an inviting possibility right there which has been overlooked. If you're talking about the Venicnii here we've discussed that as a possibility before. I always thought it odd that O'Rahilly ignored this name in his discussion of Ptolemy's map. You also have a similar name in lowland Scotland (Venicones). I'm open to the idea that the Dal Cuinn had an earlier tribal name in Ireland. Although it is possible to see the root Conn in the Venicone tribal name. Perhaps even in Venicnii if the name was corrupted. O'Rahilly's analysis of the Milesian scheme gets too much attention in my opinion. He only used it to attempt to show how the myth makers used traditional legendary material to stitch together a unified history of Ireland. He clearly did not take it seriously beyond that, mainly demonstrating that the Fir Bolg (Belgae) were in Ireland long before many other tribal groups. John R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message