ptcrawford
- Mar 17
- 6 min read

No Irish History Before AD600?

Published 2018 to much fanfare, with President Michael D. Higgins giving an address, the 4-volume Cambridge History of Ireland is by all accounts a significant academic achievement in presenting the history of Ireland not only for fellow academics but also in a manner accessible for a wider audience.

However, as an ancient historian from Northern Ireland who has written on some aspects of ‘Roman Age’ Ireland (specifically the large silver hoards discovered along the North Coast of Northern Ireland), I cannot help but feel that there is a significant gap... dare I say... void in the ‘History of Ireland’ presented by the CHI; specifically, according to this multi-volume, the ‘History of Ireland’ does not include anything pre-historic or ancient.

This could be forgiven if the 4-volume was a combination of a Cambridge Medieval History of Ireland and a Cambridge Modern History of Ireland, but this is not the case. And even that would not explain the lack of any sort of coherent political story from AD600 to the Norman invasion of 1170 or the general lack of medieval material, with over 90% of the total pages of the four volumes given to the period after 1550.

Sticking to the ‘ancient gap’ in the CHI, even overlooking the lack of archaeological evidence, which in itself is a choice to raise an eyebrow or two, there is a significant amount of information recorded in various written sources relating to Ireland pre-AD600.

· enough rumour about the inhabitants of the island circulated for the likes of Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 5.32 and Strabo, Geog. 4.5.4 to claim that the Irish were cannibals

· the island’s proportions and position being mentioned by Julius Caesar, BG 5.13, who was the first to call the island Hibernia

· Pomponius Mela, De Chorographia 3.53 claims of ‘cattle-busting’ amounts of grass to be grown in Ireland

· the various mentions of Ireland in Tacitus’ Agricola, such as how the circumnavigation of Britain by the Roman fleet that will have brought it within almost touching distance of Ireland; Agricola’s claim about conquering the island with a legion and communication with a displaced Irish regulus, who may or may not be Túathal Techtmar and Tacitus’ general geographical knowledge of the island from merchants (Tacitus, Agricola 24; Warner (1995))

· the series of Roman forts across Dumfries and Galloway that seem to be pointing westward from Agricola’s time as governor

· the possibilities surrounding the sites at Drumanagh and Lambay Island (Raftery (1996); Rynne (1976))

· the boast in Juvenal, Satires II.160 about how Roman arms had advanced “beyond the shores of Iuverna”

· there is significant detail about the geographical outline of the island and location of several of its settlements in Ptolemy, Geographia

· all those mentions of ‘Irish’ piratical raids across the Irish Sea (cf. Ammianus Marcellinus XX 1.1; XXVI 4.5; XXVII 8.5)

· the service of Irish tribesmen in the Roman army (Rance (2001))

· Symmachus, Ep. II.77 mentions of “septum Scotticorum canum”, ‘dogs of the Scotti (i.e. the Irish)’ being shown off in Rome itself

· in terms of such contacts, there is the appearance of significant Roman finds in Ireland – the hoards at Ballinrees and Balline are only the most famous, with other hoards from the North Coast of Northern Ireland recorded in newspapers and journals of the 19th century, all of which suggest more intricate political contact between the Irish tribes and Roman authorities than be the spoils of raiding and trading (Crawford (2017); (2019); (2022); Warner (2020))

· Roman influence in Ireland possibly highlighted by ‘sagittarius’ – Latin for ‘archer’ – seemingly appearing on an ogham stone at Burnfort

· there is the Irish colonisation of significant portions the western Cornish, Welsh and Scottish seaboards, including the capture of the Isle of Mann before 417 recorded by Orosius, Historiae adversum paganos I.2.81-82

· the Christianisation of the island from the mission given to Palladius by Pope Celestine I (Prosper of Aquitaine, Epitoma Chronicon; Contra Collatorem), the actions of St. Patrick and then the Irish involvement in re-Christianising Britain and parts of the European continent, with its central position in the peregrinatio and the significant dispute over the calculations of Easter.

· Even if you try position the ‘history of Ireland’ to the period where the Irish were writing the history of themselves, that would still leave St. Patrick a rather drastic oversight… sure, he himself was not Irish, but is anyone really going to argue that his writings are not about the Irish and highlight their history pre-AD600?

And this list is by no means an exhaustive list and only approaches ‘Roman’ Ireland.

There are the Mesolithic site at Mountsandal, the passage tombs at Newgrange and Knowth, hillforts like that at Dún Aonghasa and Navan, the magnificence of the Broighter Hoard to name but scant few in terms of archaeology. And what of all the information recorded for the years pre-AD600 by the various Irish annals? Much of it is problematic, but that does not necessitate their complete ignoring.

As Sean Duffy asked in his review of the CHI from History Ireland, “What is the casual reader to conclude from such an approach to Irish history? It can only be either that nothing much ‘happened’ in medieval Ireland, or that nothing much happened that the editors consider ‘important’.”

But why is there such a gap in the CHI?

In the past, there could have been some hangover of the ‘anti-colonial’ mindset that vociferously sticks to the ‘the Romans never came to Ireland’, even in the face of mounting evidence and even common sense – Roman traders reached parts of central Africa and the Far East, but did not cross the 12 miles from Scotland to Ireland? This is unlikely in such an academic volume. Similarly unlikely would be any suggestion that there was a rush to publication stunted the scope of the volumes, which is also evidenced by the high standard of what is within the CHI. A lack of expertise on Ancient Ireland would also not be a reason with the likes of Jaqueline Cahill Wilson and her fellow contributors to the Late Iron Age Roman Ireland (LIARI), to name but a few, more than capable of providing a bedrock for a proper look at Ancient Ireland.

Maybe there is something much more innocent at play here. As there is an extensive Cambridge Ancient History volume set, might there have been an intentional choice made in the Cambridge History of Ireland to leave room for a Cambridge Ancient History of Ireland?

And even if Ancient Ireland has just been given short shrift without any outline for a ‘prequel’ being thought about, the CHI has been done in such a way that a Cambridge Ancient History of Ireland volume covering pre-history, ‘Celtic’, ‘Roman’ and ‘Early Christian’ Ireland to AD600 is there for the writing.

No Irish History Before AD600?

Recent Posts