Romans in Wicklow

slowburner · 31-08-2011 7:43pm

Forgot to mention that you can download the entire paper as a PDF.

CDfm · 31-08-2011 10:11pm

slowburner wrote: »

I hear you Cd. This particular site is a strange one though - there is a legal dispute (or was) between state agencies and the owners of the property. The finds from the '70's have been under lock and key in the national museum and can't be seen for love nor money, by all accounts.

The finds turned up in Sotheby's and were seized.

Wednesday April 25 2007
MODERN day ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ could be getting away with a priceless fortune of Roman and Celtic artefacts from one of the greatest unexcavated historical sites in Europe.Two men were discovered on the 48 acre site at Drumanagh, between Loughshinny and Rush, with metal detectors recently, sparking a search by local gardai but the pair had escaped before beingBy Hubert MurphyMODERN day ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ could be getting away with a priceless fortune of Roman and Celtic artefacts from one of the greatest unexcavated historical sites in Europe.
Two men were discovered on the 48 acre site at Drumanagh, between Loughshinny and Rush, with metal detectors recently, sparking a search by local gardai but the pair had escaped before being apprehended.
The Drumanagh site is a massive fortification, defended by sheer cliffs on three sides and the remains of battlements and surrounding ditches on the remaining side.
It hit the headlines some years ago when a noted professor stated that he believed it was the location for a Roman invasion of Ireland.
Dr Richard Warner caused a real stir when he stated that he felt it had a very strong Roman link.
Since then, various experts have argued over the subject, without being totally sure.
If the ‘Roman invasion’ was ever proved then Irish and European history would have to be rewritten.
In the past, various items were recovered from the site and ultimately ended up in the hands of the National Museum. It was never disclosed what the items were, but it is believed that they are of a Roman origin. Aerial photographs indicate that the outline of buildings can still be seen.
But what makes the privately-owned Drumanagh so special and why would the average metal detector fan be so interested in unearthing its treasure?
The site has been for thousands of years and more than likely was a base for various groups in that time.
In 1927, just across the narrow waters on Lambay Island, a number of Roman burials were discovered. Some years ago the whole subject of Drumanagh made it into the courts after Roman items were recovered from the Loughshinny site.
The Roman influence in Fingal has to be fully proved but if any region in Ireland could have been settled – it was here!
Evidence of Roman finds have been given in Barry Raftery’s book ‘Pagen Celtic Ireland.’

http://www.fingal-independent.ie/news/raiders-attempt-to-steal-the-secrets-of-drumanagh-671355.html

Wibbs · 03-09-2011 8:36pm

OK lets imagine Romans were here, maybe a small garrison say. Then there are a couple of mysteries. Chief among them is pottery/ceramics. Ireland was unusual in one way we had very little of a ceramics based culture here at the time(IIRC a small amount in the north east?). Thy have found the odd ceramics but they're imported and in small number, no indigenous production. You would expect that if the Romans were here in any sort of numbers.

The second is building technique. The Irish vernacular has a very long continuity to it, from iron age and before and small evolutions of that. Round houses and round buildings, roughly dressed rock with corbeled stone roofs. Some with crude mortar like round towers, others dry stone walling. In some the expertise with the material is sublime. But stand in a later monks cell on the Skelligs and look up, then go to Newgrange and look up and the view is very similar yet separated by 4000 years. You see more of that lack of Roman/European influence with the monastic sites later on. It takes a long time before the simple Roman arch comes in. The early sites and round towers are lintelled. They're aware of arches, indeed carve arches into lintels, but of the technique itself strangely reluctant to change what they've always done. And this is when Ireland was collecting books on everything they could get their monkish hands on.

It does seem odd to me that if there were anything like a small garrison/trading town of Roman origins, they didn't take up pottery, building techniques, writing(at that stage) and other Roman fancies.

gbee · 03-09-2011 8:50pm

Wibbs wrote: »

It does seem odd to me that if there were anything like a small garrison/trading town of Roman origins, they didn't take up pottery, building techniques, writing(at that stage) and other Roman fancies.

Camps. I think we know from history that the Romans did not occupy in any significant numbers or style, however, the various circumstantial evidence suggests we were certainly probed ~ ergo some incommunicado would be expected by the small recce parties.

CDfm · 03-09-2011 8:57pm

Wibbs wrote: »

OK lets imagine Romans were here, maybe a small garrison say. Then there are a couple of mysteries. Chief among them is pottery/ceramics. Ireland was unusual in one way we had very little of a ceramics based culture here at the time(IIRC a small amount in the north east?). Thy have found the odd ceramics but they're imported and in small number, no indigenous production. You would expect that if the Romans were here in any sort of numbers.

It does seem odd to me that if there were anything like a small garrison/trading town of Roman origins, they didn't take up pottery, building techniques, writing(at that stage) and other Roman fancies.

What about the odd shipwreck. Thats a likely explanation isn't it ?

How would the Irish have treated that.?

Wibbs · 03-09-2011 9:20pm

Maybe. It is odd though. Then again what's odder is those technologies didn't flood in even when we had a goodly chunk of the literature of the known world at our fingertips. Maybe there was some odd cultural insularity at play? I mean the monks who traveled throughout Europe and back would have seen all sorts of technologies new to them. They were a major part of Charlemagnes renaissance. They reported them but didn't really bother incorporating them back home. In architecture it wasn't until the Normans and European religious orders(in big numbers) came on their heels that they did so. Theology, histories, languages, philosophy they went at with a ravenous thirst for more but more technological stuff not nearly so much. Their monastic sites are built like iron age raths in layout, no real grid pattern even when they finally go with this new fangled square building stuff.

So maybe the same insularity happened with contact with the imperial Roman world? Strange they didn't go gangbusters for writing like they did later on. Then again Ogham script may have it's origins in latin script IIRC. Again off the top of my head I seem to recall a later ogham stone where the ogham script is on one edge and a latin script is on the other edge and written on said edge like ogham. So maybe that's evidence of more widespread Romanic influence? Though again could be explained away by simple trade.

My main issue with Roman in Ireland is the Italian lads don't mention it. They talk about possible invasion, but actual stuff is thin on the ground(and of questionable sources) and you'd think they would have noted it, even if it was a small thing? If they had and it was lost, you'd think the later monks would have mentioned it as a connection to Christian Rome and AFAIR they didn't.

gbee · 03-09-2011 9:32pm

Wibbs wrote: »

, even if it was a small thing? If they had and it was lost, you'd think the later monks would have mentioned it as a connection to Christian Rome and AFAIR they didn't.

Christian Rome would not have existed for another 300 years, given the 50AD date stated already.

And all we know about Christ's 'execution' is one line and Jesus was a 'common' name.

OT, the crucifixion story was not born for another 1200 years, not exactly a point of reference, more food for thought.

slowburner · 03-09-2011 9:42pm

CDfm wrote: »

What about the odd shipwreck. Thats a likely explanation isn't it ?

How would the Irish have treated that.?

I think you've brought up a very significant issue here CD - boats.
Did the Romans have boats on the western seaboard of Britain which were capable of delivering any form of heavy military presence - I have a notion that there is no archaeological record of suitable craft being unearthed across the Irish Sea.
Wibbs, another thing to think about in relation to this 'insularity' is the documented tale of St.Patrick being repulsed at Arklow - were the natives on the eastern Irish seaboard just too formidable and intransigent?

CDfm · 03-09-2011 9:51pm

But technology and ideas don't transfer with one way migration and wasn't that much later.

And, a scholar went to for bookish reasons not building techniques and one beehive cell was as good as another and I can imagine why **** with the known technology. I also imagine there was not a huge demand for beehive cells.

[SIZE=+1] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] St. Columbanus is the best[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]known of the Irish missionaries. Born in Leinster and ordained in 572 he went with 12 companions to France in 590. Among his companions were St. Gall and St. Deicholus. In Burgundy they set up monasteries in Annegray, Luxeuil and Fontaines and later other monasteries at Faremoutiers in 627, Jouarre in 630 and Rebais in 636.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] His most famous monastery is in Bobbio in Italy where the Saints body is interred under the marble altar in the Basilica of St. Columbanus. The beautiful town of San Columbano was named after him[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] St. Gall settled in Switzerland. He led the people away from idolatry and the town and canton of St. Gall was called after him.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] St. Goban Martyr A.D. 670. He built a church dedicated to St. Peter near Le Fere and Premontre. He was beheaded by German Barbarians. Town now known as San Goban.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] St. Gibrian (A.D.515). One of 7 brothers and 3 sisters who left Ireland to serve God more freely in a strange land. They settled at the junction of the Cook and the Marne.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] St. Fiachra (A.D.670). An Irish monk who sailed to France where he wanted to give himself more fully to God. However at Breuil in the province of Brie he set up a hospice for travellers which later developed into the village of Saint-Fiacre in Seine-et-Marne. The fame of his miracles of healing continued after his death. He is Patron Saint of gardeners and cab drivers of Paris.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] St. Fursey (A.D.648) was born near Lough Corrib. He experienced wonderful ecstacies. Between 640 and 644 he crossed to Gaul and built a monastery at Lagny and died shortly after in 648. His remains were transferred to Peronne[/FONT][/SIZE]

http://www.sip.ie/sip019I/europe.htm

The Celtic Church was monastic and even Charlemange took on Irish monks.

CDfm · 03-09-2011 10:00pm

slowburner wrote: »

I think you've brought up a very significant issue here CD - boats.
....................were the natives on the eastern Irish seaboard just too formidable and intransigent?

Occam's Law courtesy of the Atheist and Agnostics

Heh heh Dades

It would also explain the knowledge of the tribes etc from maps.

Another possibility is traveling druids, if monks travelled, why not druids and how would the Romans have treated them ?

slowburner · 03-09-2011 10:04pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe. It is odd though. Then again what's odder is those technologies didn't flood in even when we had a goodly chunk of the literature of the known world at our fingertips. Maybe there was some odd cultural insularity at play? I mean the monks who traveled throughout Europe and back would have seen all sorts of technologies new to them. They were a major part of Charlemagnes renaissance. They reported them but didn't really bother incorporating them back home. In architecture it wasn't until the Normans and European religious orders(in big numbers) came on their heels that they did so. Theology, histories, languages, philosophy they went at with a ravenous thirst for more but more technological stuff not nearly so much. Their monastic sites are built like iron age raths in layout, no real grid pattern even when they finally go with this new fangled square building stuff.

So maybe the same insularity happened with contact with the imperial Roman world? Strange they didn't go gangbusters for writing like they did later on. Then again Ogham script may have it's origins in latin script IIRC. Again off the top of my head I seem to recall a later ogham stone where the ogham script is on one edge and a latin script is on the other edge and written on said edge like ogham. So maybe that's evidence of more widespread Romanic influence? Though again could be explained away by simple trade.

My main issue with Roman in Ireland is the Italian lads don't mention it. They talk about possible invasion, but actual stuff is thin on the ground(and of questionable sources) and you'd think they would have noted it, even if it was a small thing? If they had and it was lost, you'd think the later monks would have mentioned it as a connection to Christian Rome and AFAIR they didn't.

This brings up another question - and I expect it ties into the intransigence quality of the native Irish - did the christian church in Ireland want to have ties with Rome? Maybe it was the very last thing they wanted.

The bog Bible that was discovered recently containing papyrus (saw the programme/forgot the details), has been interpreted as hinting that the early Irish church was more Coptic than Roman.

CDfm · 03-09-2011 11:13pm

Well archaelogy moves slowly and unfortunately Barry Raftery passed away last year and he was the pioneer Pagan Celtic Prehistory in Ireland.

A thoroughly nice man by all accounts.

http://www.ucd.ie/archaeology/staff/barryraftery/

Wibbs · 04-09-2011 12:47am

gbee wrote: »

Christian Rome would not have existed for another 300 years, given the 50AD date stated already.

You missed my point.

And all we know about Christ's 'execution' is one line and Jesus was a 'common' name.

Are you referring to Tacitus? In which case yes, but it shows that by the time of that paragraph(100 AD) there was already a sect known to him with the basic end story attached to followers known as christians. I quote from the lad himself;

Nero placed the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called christians by the people. Christus, from whom the name has its origins, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Judea, stirring shít up for 2000 years. Respect.

If you're talking of Josephus that's around 100 AD too, though there is debate over the authenticity;

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of magic, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. When Pilatus, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

The living again bit is disputed, but even so the editing was within 200 years of the purported original events.

OT, the crucifixion story was not born for another 1200 years, not exactly a point of reference, more food for thought.

In another dimension possibly, or you've added a 0 to 120 years. The basic crucifixion story was set by at the latest 100 AD with roots going back earlier. So your notion of the story being born in the 11th century is just a tad off. Go to Clonmacnoise and look at the 9th century high crosses describing same and get back to us. Read Patrick's 5th century confessio and get back to us. And that's just here. The basic story/myth was well in place by at least 150 AD.

slowburner wrote: »

This brings up another question - and I expect it ties into the intransigence quality of the native Irish - did the christian church in Ireland want to have ties with Rome? Maybe it was the very last thing they wanted.

The bog Bible that was discovered recently containing papyrus (saw the programme/forgot the details), has been interpreted as hinting that the early Irish church was more Coptic than Roman.

Possibly. They did send letters back and forth to Rome which suggests the feeling that they wanted to be included in the party, with some caveats. I think it was Columbanus who opened with an address to the pope in a letter saying IIRC "Dear holy father, or should I say brother in christ". I'd say that went down real well.

They may be described as an insular church, but they themselves were at pains to make the connection with earlier theological continuity on their own terms. They wanted to be a part of the larger world. Sometimes leaving Irish legends with Judeochristian ones to bolster that.

CDfm · 04-09-2011 1:24am

Most impressive Mr Wibbs, is that a garden shed in your back yard or a beehive cell.

CDfm · 04-09-2011 10:19am

Wibbs wrote: »

iThey may be described as an insular church, but they themselves were at pains to make the connection with earlier theological continuity on their own terms. They wanted to be a part of the larger world. Sometimes leaving Irish legends with Judeochristian ones to bolster that.

The shamrock definately seems like a borrowed symbol.

The Romans banned druidism I seem to recall , so little is known about it and I wonder if there was pan european druidism.

slowburner · 04-09-2011 10:35am

CDfm wrote: »

The shamrock definately seems like a borrowed symbol.

The Romans banned druidism I seem to recall , so little is known about it and I wonder if there was pan european druidism.

Gaul, Britain and Ireland?

steddyeddy · 04-09-2011 1:48pm

patwicklow wrote: »

The first is a townland near Avoca by the name of Tigroney, this is translated locally as "The House of the Romans"

Im from this area and iv never heard anything in history about this, But i will do some research and get back,

My cousin lived in avoca and I have heard that about tigroney myself.

slowburner · 05-09-2011 12:59pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe. It is odd though. Then again what's odder is those technologies didn't flood in even when we had a goodly chunk of the literature of the known world at our fingertips. Maybe there was some odd cultural insularity at play? I mean the monks who traveled throughout Europe and back would have seen all sorts of technologies new to them. They were a major part of Charlemagnes renaissance. They reported them but didn't really bother incorporating them back home. In architecture it wasn't until the Normans and European religious orders(in big numbers) came on their heels that they did so. Theology, histories, languages, philosophy they went at with a ravenous thirst for more but more technological stuff not nearly so much. Their monastic sites are built like iron age raths in layout, no real grid pattern even when they finally go with this new fangled square building stuff.

So maybe the same insularity happened with contact with the imperial Roman world? Strange they didn't go gangbusters for writing like they did later on. Then again Ogham script may have it's origins in latin script IIRC. Again off the top of my head I seem to recall a later ogham stone where the ogham script is on one edge and a latin script is on the other edge and written on said edge like ogham. So maybe that's evidence of more widespread Romanic influence? Though again could be explained away by simple trade.

My main issue with Roman in Ireland is the Italian lads don't mention it. They talk about possible invasion, but actual stuff is thin on the ground(and of questionable sources) and you'd think they would have noted it, even if it was a small thing? If they had and it was lost, you'd think the later monks would have mentioned it as a connection to Christian Rome and AFAIR they didn't.

There's a doctorate in this for some scholar.
If the Romans were having a hard time beyond Hadrian's wall with the Picts and they knew that the Irish were just as hardy, then the Irish sea must have been an even more comforting barrier.

The ‘Panegyric on Constantius Caesar’ of 297 linked the Picts with the Hiberni, but thereafter they are always linked with the Scotti. The poet Claudian (Claudius Claudianus), writing in 398, confirms that the Scots are indeed Irish:
“... ice-bound Hibernia [Ireland] wept for the heaps of slain Scots.”Claudian ‘Panegyricus de Quarto Consulatu Honorii’ (Panegyric on the Fourth Consulship of Honorius)

Perhaps too, the monks (being good Christians) wanted to distance themselves from such warlike peoples and conveniently omitted that part of history.

slowburner · 05-09-2011 9:55pm

From here www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/irishkings.wps.htm

120-145 01. Tuathal "Teachtmar" [Tuathal "Le Legitime"] reckoned "first" Kingof Midhe ["Middle Kingdom"]; = Baine, daughter of Sgaile “Balbh”, a British king. Tuathal was born in exile in Britain where his parents had taken refuge during a rebellion in Ireland in which his father was overthrown. The record in the "Lebor Gabala" says that Tuathal was born outside of Ireland and had not seen the country before he invaded it. All accounts say that Tuathal came from abroad with a foreign army. This army, called the "Fianna", was recruited from a colony of Irish exiles in Roman Britain, called "Fenians", whose ancestors had come to Britain a generation earlier during the rebellion in Ireland that had overthrown his father. In Year 120 the Roman Emperor Hadrian, who had come to Roman Britain to fight the Picts, responded to attacks by the Irish Picts by organizing the colony of Irish exiles [Gaels] in Roman Britain, called "Fenians", into a militia or legion, called the "Fianna", and gave command of it to the exiled Irish prince Tuathal "Teachtmar", who invaded Ireland against the Picts apparently with an imperial commission. Tuathal, nick-named "Teachtmar", the royal Milesian heir, captain of the "Fianna", almost certainly in Roman service, conquered Ireland on behalf of the Roman Empire, although Ireland was never formally incorporated into the Roman Empire. Tuathal with an army mostly of foreigners, accompanied by his mother, Ethne-Imgel, a British princess, came ashore at Malahide Bay, rallied the Irish people, and, challenged by the Pict-King [C]Ellim of Ulster, defeated the Picts, who had extended their domination from Scotland and Ulster over the whole of Ireland, and drove them back into Ulster. Tuathal marched on Tara, expelled the Cruithni [Picts], the Ligmuini, the Gailioin [Goidels], the Fir-Bolg, and the Domnainn, from County Meath, and occupied Tara, where he was acclaimed high-king. Tuathal slew his predecessor, King [C]Ellim of Ulster, in battle at Aichill, then, proceeded to campaign throughout Ireland against the rebellious Aitheach-Tuatha, and defeated them in a series of battles. Tuathal reduced Leinster to vassalage, and imposed his authority over Munster, Connacht, and Ulster.

And from here http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100054/text049.html

Tuathal Teachtmhar ... held the sovereignty of Ireland thirty years. He was called Tuathal Teachtmhar, as every good came in his time. Now Fiachaidh Fionnoladh left no issue but one son, who was called Tuathal Teachtmhar; and that son was in the womb of Eithne daughter of the king of Alba, who escaped by flight from the destruction of Magh Cru in Connaught, when the Athachthuaith slew Fiachaidh Fionnoladh and the free tribes of Ireland. And after the birth of Tuathal in Alba he was brought up and educated in politeness there till he had reached the age of twenty-five years....... And it was about this time that the Athachthuaith heard that there was in Scotland a son of Fiachaidh Fionnoladh, whose name was Tuathal Teachtmhar; and a large party of the Athachthuaith took counsel together, and they agreed to send envoys to Tuathal to Alba. There were also companies of the remnant of the free races of Ireland, namely, clann an Duinn Deasa of Leinster, Fiachaidh Casan and Fionnbhall his brother, and six hundred pirates with them, devastating Ireland to avenge the treachery of the Athachthuaith towards the kings and free tribes of Ireland. When Tuathal Teachtmhar heard these tidings, he set out for Ireland with his mother, Eithne daughter of the king of Alba, accompanied by a large host. Tuathal was twenty-five years of age at that time. And they put into port at Iorrus Domhnann, where they met Fiachaidh Casan with his brother. Thence they proceeded to Tara, and there assembled their supporters from all parts of Ireland to meet Tuathal, and they proclaimed him king of Ireland.....Then Tuathal and his supporters went against the Athachthuaith throughout Ireland, and defeated them in twenty-five battles in Ulster, and twenty-five battles in Leinster, and twenty-five battles in Connaught, and thirty-five battles in Munster.

And there is a remarkably similar description of a Roman governor of Britain by the name of Maximus who is purported to have led an invasion on Ireland in the 225 AD. See here
I know that reports from these times might need a pinch of salt, but there is a fair degree of consistency amongst different sources.

slowburner · 06-09-2011 11:51am

The two passages above, while archaic and difficult to read, point out that there was indeed a military action from Roman Britain on Ireland. It would appear however, that this action was not carried out directly by Roman soldiers, it was rather a force of exiled Irish probably trained by the Romans. Whether or not they were armed by the Romans is another question. If they were, then Roman military artifacts would surely have turned up somewhere - there is no evidence, to date, of any Roman military artifacts.
Whatever about the unreliability of documentation about this time, the descriptions do at least concur on a period of Roman military interest in Ireland. The period is about 125 years - from Tuathal Tectmar in around 120 AD to Maximus in around 225 AD. References to Maximus' invasion are scarce but I came across this oddity here (unknown author On the Life of St.Patrick):

Patrick, then, (was) son of Calpurn, son of Otid, son of Odisse, son of Gorniuth, son of Lubeniuth, son of Mercut, son of Otta, son of Muric, son of Oricc, son of Leo, son of Maximus, son of Ecretus, son of Eresus, son of Felestus, son of Ferinus, son of Brittus, from whom are the Britons.

If Patrick was here around 420/30 AD and we allow a period of 20 years to produce a child for each generation, then this would tie in perfectly with Maximus in 225 AD. Looks to me at any rate, that Patrick was the descendent of a Roman governor who is reputed to have invaded and conquered Ireland in the year 225 AD.
Perhaps some proper historian will come along to dismiss these writings out of hand, or do they have any basis in truth? I would find it hard to accept that they are completely fictional.

slowburner · 06-09-2011 1:06pm

The first passage above states that Tectmar landed at Malahide, the second mentions Iorrus Domhnann, There is a further obscure note (from here 'The Irish Version of the Historia Britonum of Nennius) on Iorrus Domhann below.
The only reference I could find which comes even close is this obscure link

In the past when Crossmolina was part of Iorrus – Domann
inhabited by the fir-bolgs, the earliest known settlers of Moyleog
(or Moylaw) were the Calry sept of the Fir-Domann. The Kings of
Hy-Fiachrach kept a fortress at Inniscoe and another on Annagh
Island in Lough Conn. One of the Fiachra sons Daithi reigned
as Ard-Ri from 405 A.D. to 483 A.D. His brother Amhalghaidh or
Awley became ruler of Hy-Fiachrach Moy and this territory
became known as Tir-Awley.

And they put into port at Iorrus Domhnann, where they met Fiachaidh Casan with his brother.

OF THE WONDERS OF ERI HERE ACCORDING TO THE BOOK OF GLEN-DA-LOCHA.

i. Inis-Gluair in Irrus Domhnann; this is its property, that the corpses that are carried into it do not rot at all, but their nails and hair grow, and every one in it recognises his father and grandfather for a long period after their death. Neither does the meat unsalted rot in it.

Curious stuff.
One source asserts that Tuathal Tectmar lands in Malahide, another indicates that it may be near Crossmolina, Co. Mayo (Iorrus might equate to present day Erris)

slowburner · 07-09-2011 3:36pm

Palladius was actually St.Patrick - any thoughts?

fontanalis · 07-09-2011 3:45pm

slowburner wrote: »

Palladius was actually St.Patrick - any thoughts?

I thought the modern mythical version of Patrick was an amalgamation of Paladius and the real Patrick. I can't remember where I read that though.

MarchDub · 07-09-2011 4:07pm

slowburner wrote: »

Palladius was actually St.Patrick - any thoughts?

Palladius is not Patrick. They are two different missionaries.

MarchDub · 07-09-2011 4:16pm

fontanalis wrote: »

I thought the modern mythical version of Patrick was an amalgamation of Paladius and the real Patrick. I can't remember where I read that though.

Much of the myth surrounding Patrick - confronting Druids etc. - was invented about two or three hundred years after he died - and then added onto over the centuries, like the Shamrock in the seventeenth century etc.

But Patrick did exist and there are two documents that give us the real and original information in him - his own Confession document and a letter that he wrote.

fontanalis · 07-09-2011 4:21pm

There was a show on rte a while back called Secrets of the Stones which i think looked at Paladius.

fontanalis · 07-09-2011 4:22pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Much of the myth surrounding Patrick - confronting Druids etc. - was invented about two or three hundred years after he died - and then added onto over the centuries, like the Shamrock in the seventeenth century etc.

But Patrick did exist and there are two documents that give us the real and original information in him - his own Confession document and a letter that he wrote.

I didn't realise the shamrock was that recent. What about the driving out of the snakes (this was a symbol for paganism wasn't it), do you know if this is a recent idea?

CDfm · 07-09-2011 4:35pm

slowburner wrote: »

Palladius was actually St.Patrick - any thoughts?

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says on Palladius

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11424a.htm

And St Patrick

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

They are contemporaries but Palladius was the first bishop and some writers refer to a "cult of St Patrick" and the Catholic Encyclopedia has him (Palladius) wussing out

Pope St. Celestine I, who rendered immortal service to the Church by the overthrow of the Pelagian and Nestorian heresies, and by the imperishable wreath of honour decreed to the Blessed Virgin in the General Council of Ephesus, crowned his pontificate by an act of the most far-reaching consequences for the spread of Christianity and civilization, when he entrusted St. Patrick with the mission of gathering the Irish race into the one fold of Christ. Palladius had already received that commission, but terrified by the fierce opposition of a Wicklow chieftain had abandoned the sacred enterprise

Not quite ready for martyrdom, but, also suggesting that there were Christians in Ireland before either arrived.

Palladius was in the Leinster area and Patrick in Ulster.

Patrick has had better PR.

fontanalis · 07-09-2011 4:56pm

Was Saint Declan active around the same time as Patrick?

CDfm · 07-09-2011 5:17pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Was Saint Declan active around the same time as Patrick?

Allegedly, the Catholic historian and archelogist Canon Patrick Power published this on him in 1914

http://www.ccel.org/d/declan/life/declan.html

More on Rev Power.

http://waterfordireland.tripod.com/rev__patrick_power_-_historian.htm

MarchDub · 07-09-2011 5:20pm

fontanalis wrote: »

I didn't realise the shamrock was that recent. What about the driving out of the snakes (this was a symbol for paganism wasn't it), do you know if this is a recent idea?

Yes, it's generally agreed that the snakes are a symbol for paganism - that myth goes back further than the shamrock probably to pre-Viking times. Remember the early Irish writers were for the most part all Christian and so wrote to support the 'overthrow' of paganism and the triumph of Christianity in Ireland.

Here is a short quote from one classic poem - The Downfall of Heathendom -by the Irish poet Oengus writing circa 800AD:

The great settlement of Tara has died with the loss of its princes;
Great Armagh lives on with its choirs of scholars.
A great cutting off, the pride of Loiguire has been stifled;
Patrick's splendid, revered name is spreading...

Paganism has been destroyed though it was splendid and far flung.

Just like today; owning the narrative was/is important - perception is reality.:)

CDfm · 07-09-2011 5:53pm

On this pre-history stuff I get fairly lost between the folklore and the fact.

Wibbs · 07-09-2011 6:14pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, it's generally agreed that the snakes are a symbol for paganism

Interestingly a Roman writer, either Strabo or Tacitus can't recall who, noted the lack of snakes in their description of Ireland. So the Roman or pre Christian world knew we were snake free. Likely contemporaries of Patrick did too which would suggest the whole Paddy kicked the snakes out as being a much later invention. IE if you said to a contemporary of Patrick or soon after "he threw the snakes out, you know" they'd scratch their head and tell you there were none to start with.

gbee · 07-09-2011 6:42pm

Wibbs wrote: »

"he threw the snakes out, you know" they'd scratch their head and tell you there were none to start with.

We'd have been very much like Britain, very few snakes, it's unlikely we never had any, our islands were connected in the past and connected to Europe and at the time of sea rise, both were separated from each other and from Europe at the same time ~ our ecology would have been the same ~ ergo we should have had snakes like Britain has today.

Also there is a custom for Christians to pray for things, praying for the defeat of evil is certainly one of them ~ can't say if this was practiced at Patrick's time but I don't see why not ~ ergo praying for the removal of the snakes might not be as infeasible.

I'd personally not take this too much to heart as snakes were never a great problem [or known to be] and we did not have the very poisonous kinds that inflict fear as they would have in the warmer European regions.

Ergo I think the snake story was written to appease his bosses in Rome rather than for local consumption. Over time, the demise of paganism as mentioned got posthumously awarded to Patrick ~ religious history is nearly impossible to chronolog ~ I'm related to the 2nd Bishop Of Cloyne 350AD # it did not even exist then but during the various conclaves Bishops would be [retrospectively] installed to give a false linearity and perpetualness.

A rewrite of history in simple terms.

Enkidu · 07-09-2011 7:02pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, it's generally agreed that the snakes are a symbol for paganism

There's also the story that Patrick destroyed the idol of Crom Cruach which was serpent like. Although this is also a distortion because Crom Cruach was probably more a "crooked man" idol based on etymology.

CDfm · 07-09-2011 7:19pm

I have found a pre-patrician Irish Christian called Pelagius better known for his Pelagian Heresy

Apart from the chief episodes of the Pelagian controversy, little or nothing is known about the personal career of Pelagius. It is only after he bade a lasting farewell to Rome in A.D. 411 that the sources become more abundant; but from 418 on history is again silent about his person. As St. Augustine (De peccat. orig., xxiv) testifies that he lived in Rome "for a very long time", we may presume that he resided there at least since the reign of Pope Anastasius (398-401). But about his long life prior to the year 400 and above all about his youth, we are left wholly in the dark. Even the country of his birth is disputed. While the most trustworthy witnesses, such as Augustine, Orosius, Prosper, and Marius Mercator, are quite explicit in assigning Britain as his native country, as is apparent from his cognomen of Brito or Britannicus, Jerome (Praef. in Jerem., lib. I and III) ridicules him as a "Scot" (loc. cit., "habet enim progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia"), who being "stuffed with Scottish porridge" (Scotorum pultibus proegravatus) suffers from a weak memory. Rightly arguing that the "Scots" of those days were really the Irish, H. Zimmer ("Pelagius in Ireland", p. 20, Berlin, 1901) has advanced weighty reasons for the hypothesis that the true home of Pelagius must be sought in Ireland, and that he journeyed through the southwest of Britain to Rome.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

He left Rome in 411 a full 20 years before Palladius came to Ireland.

So maybe the snake story is allegorical given Palladius and Patricks mission was

Pope St. Celestine I, who rendered immortal service to the Church by the overthrow of the Pelagian and Nestorian heresies,.....when he entrusted St. Patrick with the mission of gathering the Irish race into the one fold of Christ

slowburner · 07-09-2011 8:52pm

CDfm wrote: »

On this pre-history stuff I get fairly lost between the folklore and the fact.

Sure who doesn't?
The fact that the Romans had a written record for the period (to 420 + AD) and that Irish records were ascribed a thousand years later makes this material tortuous, to say the least.

slowburner · 07-09-2011 8:59pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Palladius is not Patrick. They are two different missionaries.

Thanks for that Marchdub. I am in no doubt that they were two separate men. I had heard that someone (don't know who,where or when) had argued that they were one and the same.
Edit: came upon this from the link in CD's post re Palladius http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11424a.htm

A German theory has found favour with some writers in recent times, to the effect that the Bishop Palladius referred to in the second entry by Prosper as sent to Ireland by Celestine was none other than St. Patrick. This theory viewed independently of the ancient historical narratives would have much to commend it. It would merely imply that the Bishop Palladius of the second entry in the chronicle was distinct from the Deacon Palladius of the first entry, and that the scanty records connected with Palladius's mission to Ireland were to be referred to St. Patrick. But this theory is inconsistent with the unbroken series of testimonies in the ancient lives of St. Patrick and cannot easily be reconciled with the traditions of the Scottish Church.

It's not difficult to see how this could have arisen: both names begin with 'Pa', both arrived at roughly the same time, both were on the same mission and both land at Wicklow.

slowburner · 07-09-2011 9:22pm

From CD's post above re. Paladius and Patrick

Palladius landed in the territory of the Hy-Garchon, on the strand where the town of Wicklow now stands

and

It was probably in the summer months of the year 433, that Patrick and his companions landed at the mouth of the Vartry River close by Wicklow Head.

I was certain from reading other sources that Patrick was repulsed at Arklow and that Palladius didn't have too hard a time. Reading these references it seems that both had a hard time with the locals in Wicklow.

This pre-history stuff :rolleyes:

CDfm · 07-09-2011 10:49pm

Funny ol thing history, as it suggest's pre-Patrician/Palladian Christians and that they did not follow Rome.

MarchDub · 07-09-2011 10:54pm

CDfm wrote: »

Funny ol thing history, as it suggest's pre-Patrician/Palladian Christians and that they did not follow Rome.

And to be accurate it took some time for Rome to really care.

It was the Gregorian Reforms beginning in the eleventh century that attempted to reign it all in.

Wibbs · 08-09-2011 9:08am

gbee wrote: »

We'd have been very much like Britain, very few snakes, it's unlikely we never had any, our islands were connected in the past and connected to Europe and at the time of sea rise, both were separated from each other and from Europe at the same time ~ our ecology would have been the same ~ ergo we should have had snakes like Britain has today.

Nope. Not since the ice ages started anyway and the last one ended. No human in Ireland has seen a wild Irish snake. We don't have moles either. Rabbits, the house mouse and brown rat are all later arrivals. The builders of Clonmacnoise would have never seen a rabbit.

slowburner · 08-09-2011 9:18am

Isn't it odd though, that we have lizards and slow worms (?) but no snakes.
Quamobrem, as Palladius might have said?

Wibbs · 08-09-2011 9:29am

We don't have slow worms either, just the common lizard. Even the frog may be a more recent import. We had a very low biodiversity, in flora and fauna compared to Europe and even the UK. They were joined for much longer to the european mainland.

slowburner · 08-09-2011 9:41am

I have a dim memory that there were slow worms in the Burren?
Presumably, it was the Normans who introduced le frog?

slowburner · 08-09-2011 10:14am

Wibbs wrote: »

Interestingly a Roman writer, either Strabo or Tacitus can't recall who, noted the lack of snakes in their description of Ireland. So the Roman or pre Christian world knew we were snake free. Likely contemporaries of Patrick did too which would suggest the whole Paddy kicked the snakes out as being a much later invention. IE if you said to a contemporary of Patrick or soon after "he threw the snakes out, you know" they'd scratch their head and tell you there were none to start with.

Here's as much as I could find from Tacitus and Strabo on Ireland; they don't mention snakes but it's good reading all the same.
Could there be a third Roman writer?
From here (Tacitus)

24. In the fifth year of the war Agricola, himself in the leading ship, crossed the Clota, and subdued in a series of victories tribes hitherto unknown. In that part of Britain which looks towards Ireland, he posted some troops, hoping for fresh conquests rather than fearing attack, inasmuch as Ireland, being between Britain and Spain and conveniently situated for the seas round Gaul, might have been the means of connecting with great mutual benefit the most powerful parts of the empire. Its extent is small when compared with Britain, but exceeds the islands of our seas. In soil and climate, in the disposition, temper, and habits of its population, it differs but little from Britain. We know most of its harbours and approaches, and that through the intercourse of commerce. One of the petty kings of the nation, driven out by internal faction, had been received by Agricola, who detained him under the semblance of friendship till he could make use of him. I have often heard him say that a single legion with a few auxiliaries could conquer and occupy Ireland, and that it would have a salutary effect on Britain for the Roman arms to be seen everywhere, and for freedom, so to speak, to be banished from its sight.

Presumably "the petty king" is Tuathal Tectmar's father.
And from here (Strabo)

3 The Deified Caesar crossed over to the island twice, although he came back in haste, without accomplishing anything great or proceeding far into the island, not only on account of the quarrels that took place in the land of the Celti, among the barbarians and his own soldiers as well,148 but also on account of the fact that many of his ships had been lost at the time of the full moon, since the ebb-tides and the flood-tides got their increase at that time.149 However, he won two or three victories over the Britons, albeit he carried along only two legions of his army; and he brought back hostages, slaves, and quantities of the rest of the booty. At present, however, some of the chieftains there, after procuring the friendship of Caesar Augustus by sending embassies and by paying court to him,150 have not only dedicated offerings in the Capitol, but have also managed to make the whole of the island virtually Roman p259property. Further, they submit so easily to heavy duties, both on the exports from there to Celtica and on the imports from Celtica (these latter are ivorya chains and necklaces, and amber-gems151 and glass vessels and other petty wares of that sort), that there is no need of garrisoning the island; for one legion, at the least, and some cavalry would be required in order to carry off tribute from them, and the expense of the army would offset the tribute-money;152 201in fact, the duties must necessarily be lessened if tribute is imposed, and, at the same time, dangers be encountered, if force is applied.

So it would seem there was Roman notion that it was not financially feasible to invade Ireland.
These Islanders were a nasty lot viz.

4 Besides some small islands round about Britain, there is also a large island, Ierne,153 which stretches parallel to Britain on the north, its breadth being greater than its length.154 Concerning this island I have nothing certain to tell, except that its inhabitants are more savage155 than the Britons, since they are man-eaters as well as heavy eaters,156 and since, further, they count it an honourable thing, when their fathers die, to devour them, and openly to have intercourse, not only with the other women, but also with their mothers and sisters; but I am saying this only with the understanding that I have no trustworthy p261witnesses for it; and yet, as for the matter of man-eating, that is said to be a custom of the Scythians also, and, in cases of necessity forced by sieges, the Celti,157 the Iberians,158 and several other peoples are said to have practised it.159

Enkidu · 08-09-2011 11:27am

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. Not since the ice ages started anyway and the last one ended. No human in Ireland has seen a wild Irish snake. We don't have moles either. Rabbits, the house mouse and brown rat are all later arrivals. The builders of Clonmacnoise would have never seen a rabbit.

Donkeys aren't native either. All this and more to be found in a book that's surprisingly interesting despite its name: "Early Irish Farming" by Fergus Kelly. Some crazy stuff in that book, e.g. The Ancient Bards had to know a selection of law poems dictating the treatment of cats, including the proclamation that the meone, the mighty cat that mews, is worth two cows.

slowburner · 08-09-2011 11:37am

While you're here Enkidu - what do you think of the latin/Roman relation to names like Templemichael, Templepatrick etc.?

Enkidu · 08-09-2011 11:52am

Also the stories of St. Patrick have to be taken with a grain of salt the size of Ireland itself. Some of the Annals say that:

1. Patrick, when under assault from assassins sent by the druids, summoned living wood from the ground to crush the assassins by wrapping around them like a boa constrictor.

2. He challenged God for the right to judge the Irish instead of God. This he did by starving himself on Crough Patrick, which brought bad luck to God (figure that one out), and God sent demon birds to test him, which Patrick defeated with his giant bell. In the end, Patrick won't concede unless God allows him to judge the Irish in stead of God. God finally relents after all creatures (including the invisible ones) and the twelve apostles beg him to give Patrick what he wants. This is the real reason for the fasting on Crough Patrick.

3. When Patrick attacks the druids it is said that the clouds recede as he approaches and "mighty music" blasts out from above his head as angels of war accompany him to Tara. At the giant battle of Tara (which is pretty crazy itself, but I won't go into it), when one of the druids attempts to fly away from the battle, Patrick makes a hand gesture and the druid is flung from the air into a rock.

4. Patrick also battles demons and has his "favourite bard" eaten by the Oilliphéist, a giant lake beast from Offaly, who creates the Shannon

5. Finally some of the Fianna, who are semi-immortal, Caílte mac Rónáin and Oisín, meet Patrick as they have survived to his time. The three team up and go on a series of adventures throughout Ireland.

6. Finally in some stories Patrick meets with, and is quite friendly to, some Celtic gods.

In the Annals, all of this is treated as completely accurate history. It also exists alongside genuine accurate material, such as Patrick's own writings in the Cathach.

Enkidu · 08-09-2011 11:55am

slowburner wrote: »

While you're here Enkidu - what do you think of the latin/Roman relation to names like Templemichael, Templepatrick etc.?

I've a bit to say on that, but first I'll gather all the Roman stuff on Ireland that I have, just so people can see the full extent of the Romans knew and did. It will be easier to comment on it in the context of that material.

Romans in Wicklow

Comments