The relationship of AT and CS with the ‘Chronicle of Ireland’

In the preceding chapter it has been argued that AT and CS do not represent different chronicles in the eleventh century, but the sources of their common ancestor and how they relate to the section before 912 still remain to be determined. There have been three main theories concerning the Clonmacnoise-group text's development in this period. The first (and most accepted) is that the ‘Chronicle of Ireland’ ended in 911 and was continued afterwards in Clonmacnoise. The second, proposed by Gearóid Mac Niocaill, is that there were separate chronicles kept in Armagh and Clonard, rather than a ‘Chronicle of Ireland’, and that from ca 960 the ‘Clonard Chronicle’ was continued at Clonmacnoise, as well as being a source for AU. The third, argued by Daniel Mc Carthy, is that the ‘Chronicle of Iona’ was continued in Clonmacnoise from 753 if not earlier, and that the ancestor of AU was a ‘Clonmacnoise Chronicle’ revised in the early eleventh century to create the ‘Book of Cuana’. Thus, both Mac Niocaill and Mc Carthy reject the textual significance of 911. The existence of items sharing the same vocabulary in both AU and the Clonmacnoise group up to about 1060 could potentially be explained by such a continuation of the ‘Chronicle of Ireland’ to about 1060, but those items will be studied in the following chapter.