The Irish Folklore Commission and the Irish Civil War: Uncertainties in Silence (1923–1935)

Abstract:The Irish Folklore Commission (IFC) was formed twelve years after the end of the Irish Civil War. Members involved in the creation of the IFC fell on both sides of the 1921-1922 Treaty Debate. Did the uncertainties of a civil war influence Irish ethnographic collections? The collecting of folklore maintained the expectations of vernacular culture demarcated in the nineteenth century. The garnering of traditional material ran parallel to Ireland’s cultural revival and language revival. The IFC assisted in the oral recordings carried out in the 1950s by the Bureau of Military History Collection (BMH), but further collaboration with a sense of similar aims did not occur at the time. Now, in the age of the digitized archive, it is timely to reassess such repositories and the relationships between them.

Keywords:Irish folklore and history; cultural revival; civil war; nationalism

____________________

Across Europe, throughout the nineteenth century, nations engaged in cultural revolutions that shaped nationalism and independence. The role of tradition archives in Europe advanced in tandem with the growth and development of self-governance in several European countries. Despite the imbrication of cultural and political concerns, the friction and divide between them were evident in war and conflict. Ireland was one such nation of vying groups and organizations that often-made decisions with competing visions of working towards a cultural revolution or political independence (Leerssen 2015). The collation of culturally significant material by those interested relied heavily on the perception of the vernacular traditions as unadulterated from a time when Ireland was self-sufficient prior to the Anglo-Norman invasion in 1169 (Crooks 2022).

Ireland saw continuous conflict from the 1916 Rising to the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921) until the end of the Irish Civil War in 1923. Cultural developments were severely disrupted. The two dominant political parties in independent Ireland derive from their position during the Irish Civil War. Fianna Fáil (Soldiers of Destiny) are descended from those against the Treaty negotiated with Britain at the end of 1921, and Cumann na nGaedheal (Society of the Irish) were the Pro-Treaty side and were in power in Ireland from 1923–1932. Cumann na nGaedheal were to merge with like-minded organizations and become Fine Gael (Tribe of the Irish). Attention was given to the importance of Irish language and culture in the early days of the newly formed state regardless of which side one took on the Treaty debate.

The Irish Folklore Commission

The impact of tradition archives through the advancement of digitization and a focus on the digital humanities merit examination to recognize aspects that the original players may not have intended. Today, online materials can be searched, examined, and disseminated in ways unimaginable in the first half of the twentieth century. One example of such an archive is the Irish Folklore Commission (hereafter IFC), now the National Folklore Collection at University College Dublin. It was formed in 1935 and was disbanded in 1970. The foundation of this Commission occurred twelve years after the end of the Irish Civil War (1922–1923).The formation of the IFC followed the creation of the Folklore of Ireland Society in 1926 and the Irish Folklore Institute in 1930 (Ó Catháin 2005). Due to the public lives of many of the members involved in the creation of the IFC, it is possible to surmise that there were supporters on both sides of the 1922–1923 Treaty Debate.

Full-time and part-time collectors carried out folklore and ethnographic fieldwork with the IFC.They worked at a local and regional level in the name of the national. The collection compromises varied documentary formats that make up a “tradition archive,” including audio, visual, manuscript, and rare printed materials, documenting all aspects of human endeavor and traditional knowledge, from material culture to oral literature, language, and artistic expression (Briody 2007). This work occurred within rural communities, primarily Irish-speaking, while cities and towns increased in population during this time.

The tumultuous history in Ireland from the 1916 Rising, the War of Independence, and until the end of the Civil War in 1923 temporarily halted the more cultural pursuits of the Celtic Revival and language revival that began in the nineteenth century. The return of such activities began in earnest in the 1920s after the formation of the new State. The Civil War, unsurprisingly, proved to be highly divisive amongst the leading figures in Irish culture and politics. The members of the IFC played several roles throughout this time in Irish history. Ultimately, the leading figure who led the Irish Civil War and was adamantly opposed to the Treaty was the President of the Executive Council in 1932, Éamon de Valera (1882–1975),who would approve the IFC despite many of its members’ strong commitment to the Treaty. Much academic and scholarly focus has been given to Éamon de Valera’s image of the ideal Ireland (Ó Crualaoich 1983; 2022; Fanning, 2009). The radio address that is often quoted in order to demonstrate de Valera’s vision of Ireland was “On Language & the Irish Nation” to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Conradh na Gaeilge (The Gaelic League) where a conservative outlook with a lack of expression of progress or modernity is expressed (de Valera 1943). It is not difficult to see how collecting folklore greatly supports the prospect of de Valera’s Ireland continuing to exist.

The sense of an overall collective may often be given to an organization or a committee. The combined assembly does not consider that each committee is formed by and made up of individuals. These individuals may have their agenda or sense of purpose for the organization in which they work. The membership of the Irish Folklore Commission in 1935 will illustrate how cultural objectives overcame any differences between the various players relating to the Civil War. That said, the uncertainties of the silences of previous military and political activity must have had an impact. The similarities that all possess are that they are dedicated, passionate, male, mostly academic, and including representation of the Roman Catholic clergy.

The tactics embraced by scholars in capturing and promoting Irish culture in the 1920s and 1930s indicate that they were working in a time of national struggle rather than seeking a new identity. They drew on older portrayals of what it meant to be Irish. Below is a succinct note on each of the founding members of the Irish Folklore Commission and their contributions to Irish society and scholarship, along with the impact their involvement may have had on the organization. Committee work may often be viewed in the collective, and the individual impact or contribution to the body as a whole is not considered² . That said, there is frequently one individual whose name is identified with a cultural institution, and in Ireland, that name is Séamus Ó Duilearga (1899–1980). The development of folklore studies and folkloristics in Ireland cannot be thoroughly examined without the inclusion of Ó Duilearga’s contributions to the field. His life’s work parallels the professionalization of folklore collecting on the island.

Two leading figures appealed to the Fianna Fáil government for the formation of a state-supported initiative on the collecting of folklore in Ireland: Séamus Ó Duilearga and Michael Tierney (1894–1975). Ó Duilearga was to become the Director of the Irish Folklore Commission and spearheaded folklore and folklore studies in Ireland (Mac Cárthaigh 2009). He was very supportive of the Treaty in 1922. He was a contributor to Saorstát Éireann: Irish Free State Official Handbook (Hobson, 1932), which was a project of the first Cumann na nGaedheal government and edited by civil servant Bulmer Hobson (1883–1969) and published in 1932 (Brown 2017). Hobson was originally from Belfast and a former member of the Volunteers and IRB before his contributions to the Saorstát Éireann: Irish Free State (Maume 2013).Ó Duilearga was the main contact point with the Department of Finance and with de Valera’s office. AlthoughÓ Duilearga was never involved politically with any aspect of the conflicts with Britain or amongst his fellow Irishmen, he had close working connections with the UCD Professor, Eoin Mac Neill (1867–1945), who was a leading figure supporting of the Treaty (Maume, Edwards, 2013). It appears Ó Duilearga must have placed all of that aside to work with the Fianna Fáil government that took office in 1932 and was responsible for having the IFC fully up and running by 1935.

Professor Michael Tierney was the professor of Greek at University College Dublin and Eoin Mac Neill’s son-in-law (McCartney 2009)³ . He was also a member of the Irish Senate. While still an undergraduate, Tierney joined the Irish Volunteers, a nationalist paramilitary organization, at their inaugural meeting in the Rotunda in Dublin in November 1913. He was also a leading intellectual in the Blueshirt movement in Ireland, a proto-fascist organization in Ireland that merged with Cumann na nGaedhealwhen they became Fine Gael. When the contradictory mobilization orders were given at Easter 1916, Tierney was on holiday. He did believe that Eoin MacNeill’s countermanding order was the correct decision on the Rising. A supporter of the Treaty in December 1921, he became deeply involved in post-Treaty politics, being honorary secretary of Cumann na nGaedheal 1923–1933 (McCartney 2009). He was the only member of the IFC who an active member of the Dáil in 1932 was, and he retained his pro-Treaty stance throughout his career. Tierney’s commitment to the IFC is demonstrated by the fact that he was the prime mover behind the transfer of University College Dublin from the city center to the suburban campus on Belfield, where the IFC would eventually be housed.

As further members of the initial committee of the IFC were appointed, the dedication to the Irish language came to the fore, and in particular, language activities in Ulster that were now partitioned mainly from the rest of the Irish State. Again, the language revival was a core aspect of the cultural revival, to be found regardless of positions on the Irish Treaty.All committee members were voluntary, apart from Ó Duilearga, who received a salary from University College Dublin. The following descriptions give a sense of the men involved in this initiative and the various agendas they brought to the table in collecting Irish culture.

Munsterman, Professor Éamonn Ó Donnchadha (1876–1953), was from County Cork and published books to help teachers teach through Irish (Breathnach, Ní Mhurchú, n.d. a).⁴ He was active in Conradh na Gaeilge and an Irish Lecturer at University College Cork. He strongly sympathized with Sinn Féin during the War of Independence and continued this support as he was against the Treaty in 1923. He acted as a judge in Republican courts. Such courts were erected to create a space to carry out justice outside the courts of the Crown (Casey 1970). He composed the song An BuachaillínBán, [The White Boy] which is still found and sung among the folk today. That said, he does not appear to have contributed to folklore scholarship. Might he have been sidelined due to his political position politically?

Seán Mac Giollarnáth (1880-1970) was a District Judge and one of the best collectors of folklore in the west of Ireland, particularly Conamara (Morley 2009a).⁵ The recent publication of Conamara Chronicles(Mac Giollarnáth, Mac Con Iomaire, Robinson, eds., 2022) is a translation of Annála Beaga ó Iorras Aithneach[Chronicles from Iorras Aithneach](Mac Giollarnáth 1941). It is a testament to Mac Giollarnáth’s lasting impact on folklore studies in Ireland. This publication is one of the best folklore collections published in the twentieth century. Originally from the Ballinasloe district in County Galway, he was meticulous in his transcriptions of his fieldwork. He spent some time living and working in London. While there, he became a member of Conradh na Gaeilge(Conradh na Gaeilge 2024)⁶ and the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) before returning to Ireland in 1908.⁷ He was a member of the Irish Volunteers but was away in Galway at the time of the Easter Rising in 1916, and he, too, was appointed as a judge to the Republican courts in order to carry out justice against the Crown court. He was active with the Folklore of Ireland Society. He published a number of articles in its journal, Béaloideas ,The Journal of the Folklore of Ireland Society, but after 1935, there was a dramatic decline in Mac Giollarnáth’s activities with the IFC in Dublin.

Liam Price (1891–1967) was also a District Judge and an expert in placename lore (O’Brien, Lunney 2009).⁸ In his approach, he was more of a historian than a folklorist and, perhaps, more of an antiquarian. Again, many publications from this period were produced by him. He happened to be in Dublin at the time of the Easter Rising, and afterward, he spent a year in France, where his interest in Irish politics began to grow, and he supported Sinn Féin. He, too, practiced in the Republican Courts before the signing of the Treaty, which he supported. He was among the first district justices appointed after establishing the Irish Free State. His contribution to scholarship does not appear in the realm of folklore studies. He seems to have taken a more historical approach. Ó Duilearga does not seem to have worked with Price, and it is the IFC’s archivist, Seán Ó Súilleabháin, who maintained a professional relationship with Price. This relationship is evident, for example, in the collecting work of photographed houses and landscapes flooded by the Blessington reservoir in the 1930s in County Wicklow (Corlett and Weaver, 2002).

The following figures may not have been vocal about their political position, and many may have held a neutral stance. If not politically, they were involved culturally and dedicated to developing the newly founded State. Father Lorcán Ó Muireadhaigh (1883-1941), a Roman Catholic diocesan priest, wasactively engaged with collecting folklore, music, and song in his case in the context of County Louth. In particular, he gave great attention to the Irish language in Louth, which was not in a Gaeltacht area but where Irish as a daily vernacular was fast disappearing (Quinn 2013). Ó Muireadhaigh, as a founding member of the County Louth Archaeological Society, demonstrated the impact of local history and archaeology on folklore studies and collecting vernacular culture within particular areas at a regional level. After the Irish Civil War, thepartition of Ulster had cut Louth off from its cultural hinterland. Ó Muireadhaigh believed this would accelerate the decline of Irish in the parts of Ulster that were not included in the partitioned counties. In 1924, Ó Muireadhaigh founded the magazine An tUltach (the Ulster-person) to preserve and promote Ulster Irish. In 1925, he was on a committee of fifteen elected at a convention to revive Conradh na Gaeilge after a severe decline in its membership and activities during the Civil War. His membership in the IFC in 1935 would have supported his efforts in promoting the importance of Irish in Ulster.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich (1856-1942), penname Cú Uladh, was from the Donegal Gaeltacht and engaged with Conradh na Gaeilge from the earliest days at the end of the nineteenth century. He especially encouraged young people and published stories and plays in Irish (Morley 2009b).⁹ He was another strong advocate for the promotion of Irish in Ulster and would have encouraged the collecting of folk traditions in County Donegal in the early days of the IFC.

Séamus Ó Casaide (1854–1942) helped establish Cumann na bPíobairí(Society of the Pipers) and Conradh na Gaeilge’s library (Morley 2009c).¹⁰ It is the words of those who knew Ó Casaide that we find the dedication he had for the preservation and commitment to the language:

In the first half of this century there was no Gael more diligent or more learned than Séamus Ó Casaide. He spent his life collecting and disseminating information on subjects related, in one way or another, to the history, language and literature of the Gaelic. (Ní Mhuiríosa, 1982)

The generosity required in ethnographic fieldwork is often fuelled by the aspirations of the collector. Ó Casaide may have been better known for his knowledge found in publications and archives, but again, his support for educating the general public may be seen in this quote:

I have never encountered anyone who had a more accurate knowledge of Irish language manuscripts and publications, of history local and the common history of the country, or Irish literature. And a more eager scholar could not be found to help a writer or to present his precise knowledge to whoever needs it. (Ó Liatháin 1943)¹¹

As this ambitious initiative began in Ireland in the 1930s, it would have been crucial to harness not only the knowledge within Irish society but also to work with people who shared the vision of the value and the importance of the material to be collected. The decisions on what cultural substance was to be sought after was often realized by those who connected the wisdom found in the vernacular with the information found in the literary traditions.

Énrí Ó Muirgheasa (1874–1945) was a secondary school teacher and one of the founders of the Louth Historical and Archaeological Society, and he was a founder member of An Cumann le Béaloideas Éireann (The Folklore of Ireland Society) in 1926 (Ó Ciardha 2009).¹² He was from Co Monaghan and was well-known and published under the name Henry Morris. He was greatly influenced at an early age by the newly formed Conradh na Gaeilge.He founded its first Co. Monaghan branch in Lisdonnan, Donaghmoyne when Ó Muirgheasa became aware of the decline of fluent Irish speakers in his local community in Co Monaghan. He contacted the folklorist Seosamh Laoide, who was amazed to hear long hero tales from local storytellers. His publications are still critical for folklorists and song scholars. His contributions to An Claidheamh Soluis[The Sword of Light]¹³ often paralleled material found in the tradition and the engagement with nation-building through contemporary printed newspapers, but with information that was looked upon as if it had been the culture of the Gaels for centuries (Ó Ciardha 2009). The uncertainty of the future may have impacted the continuous return to what was viewed as “tradition.”

It is often difficult to distinguish the promotion of Irish from the collecting of folk traditions; this is a prime example. Again, the continuation in the promotion of what was perceived as Irish culture continues as it did before the Civil War with little regard for positions in relation to the Treaty. It is also worth noting that Ó Muirgheasa’s connections with Father Lorcán Ó Muireadhaigh demonstrate the continued collaborations in local activity contributing to the national narrative and objectives of the Irish State.

Professor Éamonn Ó Tuathail (1982/3–1956) was active as a folklorist in the field and collected vast amounts of oral poetry, songs, language, placenames, and associated lore. Rainn agus Amhráin[Rhymes and Songs],his first book, is still a classic (Breathnach 2019). Scéalta Mhuintir Luinigh [Stories from Muintir Luinigh] (1933) was recently translated and republished (Ó Tuathail, 2015. [1933]). He was a Professor of Irish at Trinity College Dublin and was very active in Conradh na Gaeilge. In 1925, he was also a member of the Conradh na Gaeilge committee appointed to reform and enliven the movement after the disruption of the Civil War and his work on the IFC followed in a similar vein. Ó Tuathail’s contributions towards the teaching of Irish in the first decade of the twentieth century were still remembered and documented in the 1930s:

In 1907 a weekly Irish class taught by Éamonn Ó Tuathail was inaugurated under the auspices of the Gaelic League in the Aghnafarcon district. The work continued up to 1909 and it was a huge success. The older people who could speak Irish took a keen interest in the classes, and their grown-up sons and daughters assiduously threw themselves into the study of Irish. Unfortunately, the classes after 1909 lapsed, and with the lapse disappeared for ever the hope of securing the preservation of another Gaedhealthacht. The following is a list of some of the grand old speakers now gone to their reward.¹⁴

Fionán Mac Coluim (1875–1966) was a collector of folklore. Although born in Antrim, he lived in Kerry and became “a Kerryman” in the southwest Kerry area, which became a focal point for Irish heritage and culture (Breathnach, Ní Mhurchú, n.d. b). He encouraged many to develop an interest in folklore and especially songs. He was very active as a teacher in Conradh na Gaeilge . He was known for a number of publications and was a musician, singer, and dancer. He, too, became a member of the IRB during his time living and working in London. Allegedly, Scotland Yard reported his “dangerous activities” to the India Office, and he was encouraged to discontinue such activity.¹⁵ He contributed greatly to the language movement in Co. Kerry as a result of his public commitment to all things Irish, and in 1920, the special British police force referred to as the Black and Tans burnt his home and destroyed his entire library and all of his manuscripts.

Monsignor Eric Mac Fhinn (1895–1987) was known in Conamara as Fr. Fair. He was a Professor of Education at University College Galway (Breathnach, Ní Mhurchú, n.d. c).¹⁶ He published Ar Aghaidh[Onwards]¹⁷ singlehandedly for decades. This work was a journal which contained a great deal of folklore not found elsewhere. He was passionate about Irish and dedicated much of his life to supporting Ireland to becoming an Irish-speaking country. In the 1940s, he was to become the Chairman of the IFC.

Professor Daniel Binchy (1899–1989) was the leading expert in early Irish and legal texts. He was involved early on when the perception of folk culture was that there were direct connections to the early Irish if not the pre-Christian period, which was later to be termed the “Nativist” school of thought (Johnston 2003, Kennedy and Edwards 2012).¹⁸

Professor Osborn J Bergin (1873–1950) remains one of the most renowned academics in Irish scholarship, and his work on Bardic poetry is essential to modern scholarship (Murphy, Lunney 2019).¹⁹ His connections with German academics facilitated engagement with German scholars in folklore studies. Binchy and Bergin may not be easily remembered for their contributions to the IFC. However, it demonstrates the academic direction the IFC aspired to in its membership and the scholarly weight such an organization could gain.

The Department of Finance representative was León Ó Broin (1902–1990), a member of Sinn Féin who had spent time in prison for his war-time activities in 1920 (White 2009).²⁰ He wrote several plays, history books, and other publications, including nine books in Irish. By the time of the Civil War, he had become a supporter of the Treaty and joined the Free State Army as a commissioned officer. After the Civil War, he was a civil servant in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and in the Department of Finance.

The civil servant Lughaidh Maguidhir (dates unknown), appointed by the government, was an IFC member from the Department of Education. Further information has yet to come to light regarding this particular member of the IFC. Finally, very little is known of Fr. John G. O’Neill, but we can see he was a member of the clergy, and the Dr. Pádraig Breathnach (dates unknown) listed in the documentation on IFC membership may or may not be the person found within the Ainm website database (Breathnach, Ní Mhurchú, n.d. d).

The only non-Irish founding member of the IFC was the Director of the National Museum of Ireland, and this was Adolf Mahr (1887–1951) in 1935. He was not in Ireland during the period of unrest in the 1920s, and his time in Ireland was limited as he returned to his homeland in Germany to support the Nazi party at the end of the 1930s. The underlying connection between the IFC and the Museum is evident from the outset. This connection may have led to a perception that material culture was better suited to the National Museum of Ireland and was not a priority of the IFC (McGuinness and Maume 2009, Briody 2010).²¹ The emphasis on the oral tradition and, in particular, material in Irish always left material culture in second place. This emphasis on the native language of Ireland is found throughout the IFC membership.

As the material of the IFC is becoming more available online through the Dúchas website many of the members of the IFC also feature in entries submitted to the repository and other collections that are becoming available online. One example is material from Fionán Mac Coluim, which may also be found in the Doegen Collection from the Royal Irish Academy (Doegen 2009). As further repositories and archival materials become more available online and in digital formats, it will not only be vernacular and folkloric collections that allow researchers to engage with a perspective that would have been difficult, if not possible, before access through one’s laptop screen. A deeper, perhaps fuller, analysis will be possible as unlikely material can now be examined side by side and almost from a bird’s eye view. The material collected by the IFC was clearly set in perceptions of culture that were formed in the nineteenth century. The skills involved in collecting that material could assist other bodies engaged in collecting work. For example, interviewers drew on or emulated the skills of folklore collectors in gathering material relating to Ireland’s time of conflict.

The Bureau of Military History

Following the conflict and strife in Ireland, the return to cultural aims and objectives resumed. Uncertainties of the future State were not taken on confidently, and there would be a new approach or emphasis on society. The continued sense of the Irish State as nurturing the perceived homogenous nature of Irish culture, particularly Irish vernacular culture, contributed to the cohesive approach of the IFC.

The Bureau of Military History Collection 1913–1921 is a collection of witness statements, photographs, and voice recordings that were collected by the Irish State between 1947 and 1957, in order to gather primary source material for the revolutionary period in Ireland from 1913 to 1921. The BMH was established in 1947 by Oscar Traynor TD (1886–1963), Minister for Defence. Minister Traynor was a former Captain in the Irish Volunteers. Groups that were included in the BMH were the Irish Volunteers and, subsequently, the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Cumann na mBan, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), Sinn Féin, and the Irish Citizen Army. The BMH is a collection of 1,773 witness statements, 334 sets of contemporary documents, 42 sets of photographs, and 12 voice recordings.

In 1935, the approach to collecting folk culture may have appeared to be unrelated to Ireland’s period of conflict. It was as if that past was now hidden, although it perhaps existed in individual relationships and collaborations. Cooperation of all political allegiances or parties was facilitated or perhaps even encouraged by the IFC and its emphasis on material in Irish, above all other aspects of culture. This commitment to perceptions of traditional culture extended far beyond the board and the staff of the IFC, including their informants and contributors. Although many members of the IFC did not align with anti-treaty views during the Civil War, there was agreement on the perceptions of Irish culture and tradition, prior to the Anglo-Norman period on both sides.

That was not the case with the BMH, as many within Irish society who opposed the Treaty would not have contributed to the BMH. Those who did not support the BMH did, however, support the IFC’s efforts. As the Irish Civil War was not fought along religious lines, the cultural links were not broken and were easily taken up again as Ireland moved on during the Free State period. The display of strength found in this unity of identity was clearly demonstrated in Ireland. Apart from the political aspirations, there was something tangible about a perceived common identity and associated goals (Morrison 2017).

Viewing ethnographic material in a far more holistic endeavor today allows for a much more inclusive and insightful approach to historical material brought together during the creation of folklore archives. The BMH demonstrates the personal stories and narratives of what happened during the Easter Rising and the War of Independence (McGarry 2011). The examination of the digital product and its relation to its original creators and creation appears to have been capturing data in silos. This digital product can now be examined and explored through a socio-political, ethnographic stance illustrating the folk imagination as captured by the IFC. The combined digitized product also illustrates evocative memories of a war-torn country that are brought together in a way that has never been fully envisioned. As we examine ethnographic, semi-structured interviews side by side, we can gain a fuller picture of life in Ireland during the first quarter of the twentieth century. In order to illustrate this, the following excerpt taken from the BMH gives an emotional connection to a calendar custom that may not be found in the IFC:

The hearthunger [sic] of wanting to see my wife and children was with me from the moment of my capture. I had decided to take the risk of being with them for Halloween, 1922, but the fates had decided against me. Now that I was on my feet and my home being quite near the prison, it was constantly in my thoughts.²²

Most of the material in the BMH is written transcriptions, but the Bureau’s voice recordings that do exist were produced with the cooperation of the IFC from 1950 to 1951.

The Bureau’s twelve voice recordings were produced with the co-operation of the Irish Folklore Commission during the period 1950 to 1951. Witnesses selected for recording, according to the Bureau’s criteria, were deemed “top level of importance” and unique in some outstanding way from the point of view of historians.²³

This approach would not have been the norm for a collector from the IFC as there would not have been an attempt to seek material from those with a perceived “higher” contribution to that of the historian. As witnessed in this age of the digital humanities, the digitization of previous archival collections is being brought together so that further critical engagement is required to allow the nuances of history to be identified and commented on. The workings and processes behind such collections should be examined to ascertain more clearly how the uncertainties of civil war did or did not influence Irish ethnographic collections . We may now be able to glean further understandings of these organizations that could not have been recognized by the participants at the time. That said, we must acknowledge the very different aims and objectives of the ethnographic semi-structured interviews and queries. There were differences in intent as there was a much more rigid identifiable sense of what comprised folklore material and what to collect from vernacular culture than the approach of BMH.

The purpose or purposes of collected ethnographic material were clearly identified as to what it was to reflect or represent.Further ethnographic material through inquiry and interviews, now held in the BMH, was sought to determine who qualified to receive a pension due to their involvement in military activities between 1916 and 1921. These interviews have contributed greatly to augmenting the national perspective with the vernacular material and details of the lived lives in the individual informant’s narrative. The substance that is core to the broader approach to folklore collecting is demonstrated through the interviews conducted for the BMH. The impact of material often sought through ethnographic fieldwork may reveal information that is not found in most historical records, and it is information that would not be gathered or collected through other record-keeping means. Often, a glimpse into the uncertainties of daily life during times of war comes to light in the BMH records. This possibility was not taken into account when Ireland developed its ethnographic repository of vernacular life and culture in the IFC. The cultural , as opposed to political, focus on folklore material does not acknowledge the political worldviews expressed by individual, narrative accounts. The IFC’s focus was on what it understood to be folklore based on the working definitions of the time. Contemporary definitions of folklore would include the unregulated trivialities of daily life (customary behavior) and narrative accounts (legends/personal experience narratives). Such accounts form the basis of many ethnographic studies.

The BMH collectors were not trained ethnographers, as such training would not have been common at the time, nor did they claim to be so trained. The recording team was made up of Bureau staff that included army officers and civil servants, as well as a number of interviewing officers who travelled throughout Ireland during the Bureau’s lifetime to interview survivors of the period. Interviewing officers filled out an opinion sheet on each person being interviewed.

The IFC assisted in the technology of making audio recordings but did not engage with the training or sharing of skills and ideas. Now that the two repositories are currently being digitized and uploaded online, researchers can examine the digital product and relate it to its original creators and creation. The material can be viewed from a socio-political, ethnographic stance. Future folklorists will expose the fault lines in the foundational sense of how vernacular culture was produced, circulated, and transmitted, just as future folklorists will doubtless find fault lines in the ethnographic process today and, perhaps, even with digitization itself.

Final Thoughts

In 1935, with the inception of the IFC, there was a chance to engage with the uncertainties and challenges of New Ireland. However, community members aligned with previous aims and objectives around cultural heritage despite years of war. Tensions were still felt after the Irish Civil War between members of the IFC though, which were quite nuanced and primarily evident through oral narratives of those who knew these men in subsequent years. Theexamination of such individuals shed light on the understanding that those members of the IFC who did engage with those who engaged in the War of Independence but were on the side of the Treaty in 1923, and those who were against agreeing to the Treaty proposed by Britain in 1921 as well as those that remained neutral throughout. By the 1930s, Séamus Ó Duilearga and Michael Tierney, who were adamantly opposed to engaging with the Civil War, were able to work with Éamon de Valera and work towards what is now one of the largest repositories of vernacular culture found in the world. The drive towards cultural aspirations was so evident members from all sides were able to work past the uncertainties that may have continued after the Civil War. If one views vernacular culture as superfluous to life, its power and impact in Ireland in the twentieth century demonstrates the power of collecting cultural identity and to what lengths may be taken to ensure this happens.