Interesting Stuff Thread

http://loiter.co/v/watch-as-1000years-of-european-boarders-change/

1000 years of changing borders in Europe.

I can say with certainty that the Ireland bit is very accurate and shows the whole 800 years of occupation slogan as the crap it is...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://loiter.co/v/watch-as-1000years-of-european-boarders-change/

1000 years of changing borders in Europe.

I can say with certainty that the Ireland bit is very accurate and shows the whole 800 years of occupation slogan as the crap it is...

Nobody said it was 800 contiguous years of occupation! :mad:

Actually. Just watched that again. Howth. Was Howth occupied for 800 years? In a row? They couldn't have just 'invented' that 800 years thing? That would be disingenuous and misleading...

As a side question, does anybody have clear and unambiguous definitions of 'Irish', 'English', and 'British'? Definitions that remain valid while considered in the context of the time span of the video? Can be quite difficult to imagine who might have been who. Weren't the first 'English invaders' actually Norman? As in French? Where we're all the Celtic shirt-wearing geniuses when France played in Croke Park?

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Banna will probably say it better, but I think the idea of Irish, English and British (as well as French, German, Spanish etc) are relatively modern constructs.
Other than just using geography, born on the island of Ireland = Irish, it all tends to break down the further back you go, and sure if everyone born on the island of Ireland were to be considered Irish, the republicans would have apoplexy.

And the immigration control people! Remember Aine whatserface?

Awesome link bann,

Jernal wrote: »

This blog post explains the significance of the discovery rather brilliantly.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Of them all, only really English has any hope of being applicable over the majority of the last 1,000 years. While there were some severe regional differences, the idea of an English nation peopled by an English race has the longest currency of all the nationalities.

Sort of...England/ Angelnen (land of the Angles/Anglish) consisted of Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia to be exact. The Angles were from Angeln in the Schleswig region of what is now Germany. Angles still live there - but they are not 'English'. Are the 'English' really German?

What is clear is they rarely called themselves Anglo-Saxons - they may on occasion define themselves as ængli or Seaxe but usually used more 'localised' terms such as Mierce, Norþanhymbre or Westseaxe.

It was the Saxons of Wessex who actually created the short-lived 'Anglo-Saxon' Kingdom of 'England' only to see one third of it 'lost' to the Danelaw by 886 - what followed was pushing and shoving of borders until William arrived in 1066 and dismissed the whole lot of them as 'English' and firmly lesser than 'Norman'.

It really was the (Welsh) Tudors who enshrined the concept of 'English' as part of their centralisation polices - much as they pushed the idea of 'Irish'

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://loiter.co/v/watch-as-1000years-of-european-boarders-change/

1000 years of changing borders in Europe.

I can say with certainty that the Ireland bit is very accurate and shows the whole 800 years of occupation slogan as the crap it is...

Am I watching the same link - that only has 100 years?

Also, apparently Greece was still in the Ottoman empire at 1877 judging by that video, and I don't think that's correct..

Right, just reading the youtube comments, someone asked why they had changed it to 100 years. I didn't think you could change the video once it's uploaded to YT.

smacl wrote: »

So I can't use vike in scrabble, and saplings don't actually saple. Oh cruel world!

You can if you play with me. I'm into spontaneous evolution of language. I don't keep score though. Keeping score is uptight.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But who shall out-pedant those selfsame pedants? I shall, that's who.

It's true that "viking" is formed from a "vik-" root plus an "-ing" suffix. "Vik-" means either a creek, inlet, bay (in which case "viking" is someone associated with such places, i.e. someone who engages in coastal navigation) or else a camp (in which case a viking is someone associated with temporary encampments). The Vikings were associated with both, so take your pick.

But the "-ing" suffix is not verbal. In a range of Teutonic languages, it indicates "belonging to", "of the kind of". So a Viking is somebody associated with the coast, or alternatively somebody associated with temporary encampments. But the Vikings didn't go off a-viking any more than your darling goes off a-darling.

The same -ing suffix gives us king ("kin-" plus "-ing", one belonging to the race, the tribe, the nobility), shilling (something belonging to the class of things which make a ringing sound, or alternatively belonging to the class of things which are divided into equal segments), farthing (something belonging to the class of things which are divided into fourths), darling (someone belonging to the class of things which are dear to us), building (as a noun, something belonging to the class of things which are built), herring (uncertain, but possibly belong to the class of things which come in large groups), gelding (something or someone belonging to the class of things which are barren).

And this is also where we get the -ing, -ling suffixes that we use as diminutives today. e.g. princeling.

The word viking does not appear in the Norse sagas - the word used is flotnar which means sea-farer and is used when the the purpose of the voyage is raiding- nearest we get to 'viking' is vikingr which specifically means a 'pirate'.

We also have farmaðr which can mean either trader or sailor.

A bay is usually rendered as vágr but vík is sometimes used (e.g. Reykjarvík =Bay of Smoke) however vík also means the act of turning from the verb víkja while vika means a week


So a flotnar (N) could be also be a vikingr (N) while off sigling (V) but only if he was slapping people around and taking their stuff.

The point being that 'viking' refers to a specific activity not a 'race' of people. It is akin to using a variation of the word Táin (meaning cattle raid) when referring to the Gaelic 'Irish' - after all, reading the Annals that appears to be their main activity.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yup. My guess (and your knowledge seems to confirm that my guess is correct) would be that the Vikings were so called not by themselves, but by (some of) the people they enountered. Normal people like us live in settled communities and farm the land; those wierdos sail up and down the coast/live in temporary encampments and live by trading and/or pillaging, and so we call them "Vikings".

Presumably the Norse who used the word flotnar weren't speaking of a nation or a tribe; they were speaking of those members of their own community who went off on raiding voyages. But other members of the community who stayed at home to farm or hunt or whatever were not called flotnar; flotnar was a job description, not an ethnic identifier.

However the people who were, um, visited never got to see the ones who stayed at home; from their point of view, everyone they encountered from this particular community was a seafarer who arrived either to trade or to pillage. Their perception, therefore, was that this community consisted entirely of seafaring raiders/traders. Hence they used the term "viking" as an identifier for the community as well as a description of the behaviour of its members.

Once Vikings settle - e.g. in Dublin - their neighours pretty soon stop calling them Vikings and start calling them, e.g., Norsemen.

Pretty much.

Although 'job descriptions' were fluid. A person (women also went on raids as full participants) could be a farmer, trader (land and sea - two different terms), sea-farer and pirate depending on circumstances at the time - bit like our own Gráinne Ní Mháille (who used ships similar in design to longships - shallow draft, highly manoeuvrable oar and sail driven. She, however also engaged in what we define as piracy - attacking other ships at sea - where as the 'vikings' tended to be raiders - attacking land based sites). She had over 1,000 cattle and breeding mares based at Carrigahowley in Mayo, crops were grown on her land but she also had a fleet of galleys. She described herself in a 1595 document as poor widow woman farmer who had no choice but to engage in a spot of raiding as if she didn't she would be raided herself and the 'piracy' was simply collecting tolls from ships in Uí Máille waters. She could, had she lived 500 years earlier, accurately be called , on occasion, a vikingr.

Like Gráinne, a typical 'viking' would have a farm but would sign up for - or organise - sailing voyages which would could be a mixture of raiding and trading. Rob something in Northumbria and sell it in Dublin would be common.

Probably it was a case of victims asking 'who are you?' and the reply would be 'I am vikingr' (i.e. I am a pirate) so they came to be known as vikings and this has been, incorrectly, extended to describe the peoples of Scandinavia. I have read people refer to 'viking children'...ummm...no. Children were not vikingr - they would be fairly crap at it being small and weak and needing to nap after lunch.

A similar thing happened with the term 'Pagan' - from the Latin pagus (country district) we get paganus (country dweller i.e. not 'civilised' as they were not a civis of a civitas - resident of a city). It referred to everyone who lived outside the 'urbs' or 'civitas' regardless of religious belief. In Roman records when we find the word is usually used in a 'country bumpkin' context. Yet we read in history books about Pagans attacking and The Pagans e.g. 'The Pagans attacked xxxx' - technically this means people who lived in rural areas attacked the city but what actually happened was non-Christians (some of whom did in fact live in urban areas and were technically Roman citizens) raided a territory.

Julius Caesar was not a 'Pagan' - nor were the vast majority of those described as 'pagan' authors.

In Ireland we still use the word 'culchi' - Ken Nicholls has made a compelling argument that this derives from Coillte or forest - if he is correct (and he usually is) this means a 'culchi' is someone who lived in a wooded area (which did make up a large portion of the Irish landmass) as opposed to those who dwelt within a cleared area like a Rath/Bawn/ monastic settlement - or within an Ostman ('viking' ) urban area (Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford etc).
A 'culchi' was still a member of the tuatha - aka the people of the clan who lived within the law, unlike a Cethern Coille (wood kern) who was a 'bandit' living outside the law having been expelled for being very bold indeed.



There is a difference between a Cethern Coille and those 'wood kerne' who later became know as 'Tories' (which is where the nickname for the UK's Conservative Party derives). According to the would be conquers both groups were bandits but in the Annals 'Tories' are those who were dispossessed and took to the forests as guerilla fighters - bit like Robin Hood but without all that take from the rich give to the poor romantic nonsense.

In Ireland we call rural dwellers Culchi but, unless they are living in a wooded area, we should be calling them Pagans. What we do not do (except in the more challenging parts of AH) is refer to Culchis as a whole, different, race of people.

CramCycle wrote: »

You probably should, we generally refer to you Corkonians (Corkonites?) as a different breed altogether :pac:

We are.

Sure Cork is the only place in the world Queen Liz is treated as an equal. Like.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Trinity re-brands and removes the bible from its crest:

Book of lies and hate removed from Trinners' crest

What makes us think that the book depicted on the current coat of arms is a bible?



I don't see anything particularly biblical about it.

Presumably, the open book will look like the one that already features in the not-much-used arms of the University of Dublin (as opposed to the arms of Trinity College):



While there's nothing to say that this book is a bible, there's equally nothing to say it isn't.

So why is one a bible and the other not?

Trinity obviously does have Christian connotations - all the more reason for asking why, if you substitute an open book for a closed book, it miraculously becomes "not a bible", when there is no indication that it was ever a bible in the first place.

recedite wrote: »

The "vikings" were often just called "gaillimh" or foreigners by tetchy locals in Ireland. The Annals complain that "foreigners" and "heathens" from the place formerly known as Inbhear Dhea (Inver dee = Vartry estuary) and thereafter known as Wicklow town (viking marshes/lowlands) had ventured inland to Kildare and burned down a church.
Also interesting is that tribes were often called after their favoured weapons, so the saxons used short swords, called sax, which they used to "sag" their enemies with. So if you are starting to sag at the end of a long day, remember where that expression first came from.

I'm wondering Banna, if you know anything about the "spearmen" of this period coming into Ireland. I'm not a historian, as such, just an amateur, but I have gathered a few loose threads into a general hypothesis; that the early settlers into Ireland were of two separate origins. The first ones arrived in the southwest, via the Basque region, but originating in the Pyrenees, as is evidenced by the similarity in DNA of certain Irish shrews and snails to that region. These were miners and cattlemen, they brought bronze-age gold and metalworking skills and also livestock. The shrews and snails were stowaways in the hay needed for the voyage.

The second lot arrived from the northwest, a seafaring tribe from around the Friesian Islands/Dutch/ Danish coast, known to Romans as Cauci celts, or possibly Angles. Their weapon of choice an iron spear or "Gar" hence they sometimes called the gar-men or germans. Their skill was in fishing and boating. Moving inland they still preferred to live by the water, in crannógs. Crannógs are not found much farther south than Lough Garr in the midlands. There was a fault line somewhere around here between them and the southerners which limited their expansion. The strife between these newcomers and the older settlers was recorded in legend as the Tuatha de Danann v the Fir Bolg. They finished up around the fertile river Shannon area eventually, from where Brian Boru eventually emerged. The ancient name "lochlainn" which is often taken to mean an Irish word for "vikings" was used even before the Scandinavians arrived, to describe these "lakemen".

Plausible hypothesis or nonsense?

I wouldn't be too familiar with pre-history as I only studied it as a fresher when I briefly did archaeology (sooo long ago that it could nearly qualify as pre-history) but I do recall Barra O'Donnabhain - whose area of expertise is pre-historic and medieval Ireland - getting very incensed over the common belief that the 'Gaels' are the same as the 'Celts' found in Continental Europe.

Barra has published on this so that is where I would go looking if I were you

Within the historical period we find a very clear line drawn between Gael and Gall - It was also very simple. Gael was anyone whose descent through the male line was 'Irish' while Gall was everyone else. They may speak the same language, follow the same customs, have the same mother, live in the same location but the line was clear. It was all in the blood. They were obsessed with blood lines.

For example Murrough Na Moar Ua Flaithbhertaigh and Tibboid na long Búrc were half-brothers. Both sons of Gráinne Ní Mháille. Both captains in her fleet. They described themselves as brothers and each named the other as executor in their wills. Murrough was 'Gael/Irish', Tibboid was 'Gall/Sean Gall/English' as he was descended in the male line from an Anglo-Norman.

It didn't really seem to make a whit of difference when it came to alliance, marriage etc but nonetheless the distinction was made clear. Your 'race' was your patrilinial bloodline and that could never change - which is why women never changed their name after marriage.

The key is the surnames - surnames were in use in Ireland long before most of the rest of Europe and often 'evolved' as people chose a more impressive male ancestor to link themselves to by blood. Uí Briain for example - they are consciously saying 'we have the blood of Boru in our veins'.

Some times they will define who the gall/foreigners are e.g. Mayo of the Saxons (Saxon monks had a small monastery in Maigh Eo). or they can be vague Dún na Gall (fort of the foreigners) as opposed to Tír Connaill - land of the people (descendants) of Connaill.

The overwhelming dominance of Gaelic patronyms prior to the Norman invasion would suggest that the majority of the population north and south considered themselves of common Gaelic ancestry (in the male line which is how they reckoned these things) and their origins were as described in pre-Norman The Book Of Invasions - which states they arrived from Iberia.

Up until the 17th century this was accepted as fact (both Gerald of Wales in the 12th century and Edmund Spenser in the 16th refer constantly to the 'racial' connections between Hibernia and Iberia) but lost ground to the whole 'Celtic' thing over the course of the 18th/19th century. Recent research in DNA mapping now favours the Book of Invasions version.

I should again emphasise that pre-history is outside my field so I can really only comment on how the various clans described themselves and their origins in the historical periods I am familiar with i.e. post-Norman.