The Hand in the Galley

[I.S]

Forgive me if this has been discussed previously herein, but I was visiting Sound Primary recently, and saw the children's renditions of a "Shetland" story, which I had not been aware of previously.

 

I refer, of course, to "The Hand in the Galley". I was fascinated, and not a little bemused, as I read this "historical" tale, relating the race between two great jarls. These jarls were each sailing in their great galleys, searching for land, when a crewman in one vessel cried, "Land ahoy!". Both galleys surged for the shore of this new land, as the winner (i.e. he who first laid his hand upon the new land), would rule there. One of the jarls (I forget his name), upon seeing he was bound to lose the race, then cut off his hand and hurled it forwards with all his might, where it landed on the beach of the new land - allegedly Shetland, itself - whereupon he "won" the race and assumed ownership and rule over the newly-found land.

 

Aside from the rather fanciful idea of the leader of a warband being willing to mutilate himself, and in such a fashion as to ensure he would be unfit to lead thereafter, this story struck me for one HUGE reason.

 

It's nothing to do with Shetland, and is simply a re-write of the Irish myth, commonly held to concern the sons of Milesius, Eremon and Eber Finn. In this myth, which pre-dates the Shetland tale, there was a race between two brothers for the shore of what came to be Eire, or Ireland. Eremon, seeing that Eber's ship had drawn ahead, cut off his right hand and hurled it forwards, onto the shore of what came to be called Eriu, Erin or Eire (although this story features nowhere in "The Book of Invasions").

 

See the similarities?

 

However, in Eriu, the myth - whether it's of the brothers, or of Labraid Lamh Dhearg (another mythical figure) - was held so strongly that the Red Hand became symbolic of the High Kings of Ulster. It's why it's still in the Ulster flag, and has no reason - other than ignorance and small minded ness - to have been usurped and corrupted by Protestant loyalists there. It was adopted by the Uí Neíll, in their various crests and flags - including my own ancestors - and even formed part of their war cry.

 

So the "borrowing" of the myth fascinates me. It is written that the Hand in the Galley first appeared (or was recorded, at least) in 1897. Does anyone, out there, know who it was that first adopted this significant piece of Irish myth and heraldry, and why?

 

[EM]

... and has no reason - other than ignorance and small minded ness - to have been usurped and corrupted by Protestant loyalists there.

This is important to note. Some people are not aware that the symbol has always been, and remains, used by both sides of the sectarian divide. It is one of the only symbols accepted by the whole of Ulster.

 

Does anyone, out there, know who it was that first adopted this significant piece of Irish myth and heraldry, and why?

As far as I know this is not known, though it must be most likely to have been Haldane Burgess. Brydon Leslie (he of the recent book on Burgess) has an interesting alternate theory on the hand's incorporation to the Lerwick UHA. He suggests that it is actually a reference to the hand of the god Tyr (who lost his hand to the wolf Fenrir). His reasoning is based on the particular mythological interests (e.g Baldur) Burgess is known to have had. This may not strictly be an "alternate" theory, as the Ulster myth is probably rooted to the same very early pagan concepts.

 

Anyway, things keep moving on, it's no longer just hands. For SMUHA we have a foot :

 

http://www.erik-moncrieff.com/misc/GalleyFootSMUHA2012.jpg

[MuckleJoannie]

The link with Northern Ireland and the Vikings comes via the O'Neills. Their version of the story is below

 

http://www.dereklundy.com/BRHExcerpt.html

 

The story has two versions. In the first, a Viking war party in a lean, dragon-headed longboat closes with the coast of northern Ireland. It is hunting priests’ gold and red-haired, smooth-skinned slaves. The leader of the fierce Northmen urges on his warriors: the first man to touch the sweet Gaelic strand with his hand or foot takes possession of it. He gets to keep whatever is there—precious metal, cattle, women, boys. There is a man aboard the longboat called O’Neill. It is an Irish name and, perhaps, in the style of slithery allegiances in Ireland, he is a turncoat. He has abandoned his family and sept and gone over to the Norse raiders, wilder even than the wild Irish. This man desires plunder and the haven of his own piece of land. It seems he craves those things more than reason, certainly more than any Viking aboard. As the longboat approaches the shore, the crew strains for the jump and its prize. Then O’Neill, the man from Ireland, lays his arm along the bulwark. He severs his hand with one swift sword blow and throws it ashore onto the sand before anyone else can make the leap. His Viking chief keeps his word. He gives that part of Ulster to his mutilated mercenary, and O’Neill takes the bloody hand as his crest and symbol.

 

Edit

The red hand appears on the O'Neill coat of arms

 

http://lordbelmontinnorthernireland.blogspot.com/2010/05/legendary-red-hand.html

[I.S]

Thank you, E.M., your posting makes quite a lot of sense actually. Throughout the myth-cycles of various peoples of our part of the world, there DOES appear the repeated image of a warrior losing a hand, whether in battle (Nuada Airgetlám/Nodenns/Gwyn ap Nudd, Labraid Lamh Dhearg and Tyr/Tīw) or through choice (Eremon or the later Ulster king or chieftain to whom this is also attributed).

 

What is clear, however, is that the symbol has been in use for a long, long time, and appears to pre-date the Danish invasions of Scotland and Ireland. The clan MacNeil of Barra bear the Red Hand, surrounded by manacles, in their coat of arms, claiming descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages. They are commonly held to be one of the oldest - if not the oldest - clan, which can be traced in Scotland, and their Gaelic bears more than a passing similarity to that of the Irish Gaelic, as opposed to the more Norse-influenced language of their Northern cousins. The MacNeils of Barra remain the last (almost entirely) Roman Catholic clan in the Western Isles. Not the sort of symbol you would expect to be adopted by such a religious clan, if it had any Protestant connotations. Unfortunately, that's down to the last 30-40 years in Ulster, coupled with the press mistakenly seizing on it as some sort of icon of the Orange Lodge.

 

The Uì Neìll DNA has been mapped, and appears separate and distinct from the Norse DNA introduced into the two countries through trade and conquest.

 

However, if the Tyr theory is correct, than the story being told in the schools is still borrowed. For as E.M. points out, this warrior god lost his hand to Fenrir, rather than through choice. That he is the god of warriors lends strength to this theory, in my opinion, as the guizers dressing as "Vikings" certainly attire themselves as warriors, and their ancestors would have sought the blessing of the appropriate deity before battle, surely?

 

[interestingly to me, at least, - and purely as an aside - Tyr provides us with "deus", as the original linguistic root of his name is "deywos", which became "deus" in Latin, and "TÄ“ waz" in proto-Germanic. It means simply "The God", and there is a school of academic thought, which has Tyr and Woden as one and the same, as Tyr was previously head of the pantheon, and was also judge over his fellows and mankind. Odin/Woden also bore the name "hangatyr" ("god of the hanged", or "the hanged god"). One school explains the former translation as arising from Tyr's role of judge, where another has it arising from Odin's sacrifice on the World Tree (think on that one for a moment. A god giving his life in sacrifice, hung or nailed on a tree and reborn to his role as chief deity...). That last is maybe most likely, as Odin was often described or depicted with a noose around his neck.

 

That both of them should have such a strong link to Fenrir - out of all the Aesir - is another point in favour of this theory, perhaps?]

[I.S]

Mucklejoannie, the McGuiness clan were unseated by the Uí Neíll, as kings. There are references to the Red Hand belonging to the former, therefore linking it more to the region, or to the kingship, rather than to any one clan. There are any number of myths, stories and accounts of the race, one of which even has it between an Uí Neíll and a Danish warband chieftain, who fancied the title during a contested period. You can take your pick. The story, however, certainly appears to be Irish in origin.

 

(The Uí Neíll were ever a fanciful and boastful lot - the chief of Clan MacNeil would have the head of his household go out onto the battlements of Kisimul Castle every evening, after the MacNeil had dined, and cry out across the sea, "The MacNeil of Barra has dined, all the princes of the world may follow!". Another illustration is shown when, at the court of the king, one MacNeil chief was being mocked by his fellows, for his claims of lineage. The rival chief goaded the MacNeil, "Next you will tell us that your ancestors were with Noah, on the Ark!". The MacNeil cast his rival a withering glance and declaimed, with contempt, "Well, they were invited by Noah, surely, but the MacNeils had their own boat in the Flood!" This thoroughly entertained and amused the king and has been a long-held clan saying ever since.)

 

I do find it amusing, though, all this "No link between Uí Neíll and O'Neill" stuff, which you find on the 'Net. I thought, for the most part, the genetic study had proven that there was such a link. Unfortunately, it also showed that very few of the many clans or septs claiming kinship or descent had any such genetic proof!

[EM]

... the story being told in the schools is still borrowed.

Despite all the uncertainty surrounding the origins, I think the Shetland version can not be correct, due to it requiring Norse expansion westwards many centuries earlier than the generally accepted period.

 

For as E.M. points out, this warrior god lost his hand to Fenrir, rather than through choice.

Actually the myth indicates that Tyr was fairly certain he was going to lose his hand. It was in the wolf's mouth as hostage for the gods intentions, which as he knew, were in fact a ruse to bind the beast.

 

Unfortunately, it also showed that very few of the many clans or septs claiming kinship or descent had any such genetic proof!

I am surprised by that. At the Viking DNA conference held at the museum, one of the lectures included specific case studies of several families. The lecturer explained that the Moncrieffs had long been known to be centred in Perthshire, but the recent DNA analysis had shown clearly they had originally come from Ulster and were linked to the O'Neill. He added that the old boy seems to have been quite a lad and was probably the source of a vast number of subsequent genetic trees.

[scoots]

Hmmmm. The Moncreiffes "linked" to the O'Neills, perhaps. But, if this is the case - and I have my reservations - it rules them out as descendants of the Ui Neill. You see, the Trinity studies showed quite conclusively that the O'Neills and the Ui Neill are NOT genetically related. Almost every O'Neill tested in these studies showed negative for the Ui Neill genetic markers, where other Irish clans claiming less direct descent from Niall Niogallaich (i.e. through sons, grandsons, etc) tested extensively positive for the necessary markers. Trinity have stated that, in their opinion, too few of the Scottish clans claiming descent were tested extensively enough to find any commonality or strong enough link to the Ui Neill model. This includes the MacSweens, Sweeneys, Lamonts and McLaughlins.

 

The latter study shows that there is a fairly extensive finding of Ui Neill markers throughout the south of Scotland, however there is no clan link string enough to state with any authority that this clan or that descend from the Ui Neill (markers found in members of the Kennedy, MacDonald, Robertson and Campbell clans).

 

Their explanation for the lack of a link between the Ui and O' Neills is a non-paternal event, or the theory that, while some clan chieftains might bear Ui Neill blood, their clan folk might not. This latter appears to have been borne out in a study of the McGuinesses in Ulster, and suggests that only those with the "Blood Royal" were entitled to rule, throughout the most successful period of the dynasty. The explanation for the genetic link to Southern Scotland is that of migration, from the continent (Ui Neill DNA having been found in France, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, as well as England), across and through Scotland/Northern England, and into Ireland, where marker bearers founded this spectacularly successful (and ruthless) dynastic line.

 

So, no, the O'Neills have no genetic link to, or descent from, the Ui Neill, and there are no studies showing that ANY Scottish clan can conclusively lay claim to any such descent either, as yet. (The Lamonts, amongst others, are pretty much on a loser, it seems, as their claims to Ui Neill descent arise through the O'Neills. Bummer, huh? ).

[scoots]

Who was the lecturer, can you remember? And which case studies did he refer to? I'd be very interested to read them.

[EM]

Who was the lecturer, can you remember?

I couldn't but I've managed to track him down. It was in the keynote by Dr Jim Wilson. He's the well-smart Orcadian genetics guy who's done loads of interesting DNA research, some of which was picked up on by the media who, predictably, concentrated on the Viking blood aspects.

 

http://www.orcades.ed.ac.uk/

 

And which case studies did he refer to? I'd be very interested to read them.

Best to get in touch directly. He says he is...

 

... happy to field queries if you are happy to deal with potential delays in replies, i get >100 mails a day and often they just overwhelm

[I.S]

Hmmmm. The Moncreiffes "linked" to the O'Neills, perhaps. But, if this is the case - and I have my reservations - it rules them out as descendants of the Ui Neill. You see, the Trinity studies showed quite conclusively that the O'Neills and the Ui Neill are NOT genetically related. Almost every O'Neill tested in these studies showed negative for the Ui Neill genetic markers, where other Irish clans claiming less direct descent from Niall Niogallaich (i.e. through sons, grandsons, etc) tested extensively positive for the necessary markers. Trinity have stated that, in their opinion, too few of the Scottish clans claiming descent were tested extensively enough to find any commonality or strong enough link to the Ui Neill model.

 

Ah. Oh well, it appears I got that one a bit back to front.

 

 

So, no, the O'Neills have no genetic link to, or descent from, the Ui Neill, and there are no studies showing that ANY Scottish clan can conclusively lay claim to any such descent either, as yet. (The Lamonts, amongst others, are pretty much on a loser, it seems, as their claims to Ui Neill descent arise through the O'Neills. Bummer, huh? ).

 

 

At least I understood that part alright!

 

Anyway, enough of the "L'Oreal science" bit, there's still no support for the Shetland story, and I far prefer the "Hand of Tyr" idea, anyway. It's more... Viking... even though there were no "Viking" people (any more than there were noble kilted Highland warrior clansmen). They were instead explorers, traders, reavers and conquering peoples of various nationality, affiliated by common lore and descent amongst other things. Yet another thing we owe to the much later poets and writers. It's a stirring fiction, as is Rob Roy, but a fiction, nonetheless, and I find it detracts from the quite incredible achievements of the peoples and nations labelled so.

 

Pulls pin, steps well back and counts to...