Who was in Ireland

tolteq

Before the celts invaded?

Karoma

Start here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A855335 ?

tolteq

very good.

Hagar

Google pre Celtic Ireland it turns up this Link

I suspect that search will time-out so you may have to google it again.

MarchDub

tolteq wrote: »

Before the celts invaded?

The BBC site suppled above is not very good because it is not accurate - Irish archeology has moved beyond the notion of a "Celtic invasion" for one. Better consult Irish produced books by Irish scholars such as Barry Raftery.

RTE/PBS collaborated on a series "IN Search of Ancient Ireland" and here is the link to info. The series was shot in Ireland and featured only Irish scholars.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ancientireland/

There was an RTE site for the same series but I can't seem to find it. If I do I will post it. There is a book also of the series called "In Search of Ancient Ireland" that used to be available at Easons but not sure if it is still in print. Very good analysis of Ireland from Neolithic times. The DVD is available from Amazon.com

Johnmb

tolteq wrote: »

Before the celts invaded?

All evidence suggests that there never was a "Celtic Invasion". The idea of such an invasion is quite outdated at this stage, and was always just an assumption that was made to explain why Irish is a Celtic language. The archaeological evidence always pointed to a continuation of the population i.e. the same people where here before the date believed to be when the Celtic language arrived as were here after it arrived. More recently, the DNA evidence supports the archaeological evidence.

Fratton Fred

i thought it said the Celts arrived, not invaded

So when did all the Celts, Vikings, Gaels and indiginous people suddenly become Irish?

Where did Ireland come from, surely it should have been Scotland shouldn't it after the Scotti? who were the Ires?

Johnmb

Fratton Fred wrote: »

i thought it said the Celts arrived, not invaded

So when did all the Celts, Vikings, Gaels and indiginous people suddenly become Irish?

Where did Ireland come from, surely it should have been Scotland shouldn't it after the Scotti? who were the Ires?

Ireland isn't named after any of the peoples, its named after a Goddess, or quite possibly was the Goddess. "Celts" correctly refers to a people who spoke a Celtic language, so the Celts and the Gaels are the same. All evidence points to them being the indigenous people. When did they become "Irish"? That specific term probably only came into use within Ireland after the Tudor conquest. But given that the concept of a high king of Ireland had existed for several hundred years prior to that I'm sure there were much older terms that existed to refer to all the people who lived on the island. Can't think of what the earliest would have been though (I'm not counting the Milesians et al as they come from later Christian writings, there must have been an actual name the people used to refer to themselves that didn't involve a link back to the old testament!)

Fratton Fred

Johnmb wrote: »

Ireland isn't named after any of the peoples, its named after a Goddess, or quite possibly was the Goddess. "Celts" correctly refers to a people who spoke a Celtic language, so the Celts and the Gaels are the same. All evidence points to them being the indigenous people. When did they become "Irish"? That specific term probably only came into use within Ireland after the Tudor conquest. But given that the concept of a high king of Ireland had existed for several hundred years prior to that I'm sure there were much older terms that existed to refer to all the people who lived on the island. Can't think of what the earliest would have been though (I'm not counting the Milesians et al as they come from later Christian writings, there must have been an actual name the people used to refer to themselves that didn't involve a link back to the old testament!)

the Celts must have had an origin though, it was said they stretched from Ireland through to the Black Sea, so where did they come from? Were they the indigenous people who adopted the Celtic language and culture? If they didn't arrive of invade, then did all those people kind of develop a culture together? was Fergus Mor mac Eirc a Celt? its not a very Celtic sounding name, I thought they were all Asterix and Obelisks etc?

Sorry, a million and one questions:D

topper75

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought they were all Asterix and Obelisks etc?

Well Caeser mentions some leaders of celtic tribes in Gaul, Switzerland, Belgium etc. with names ending in ..ix. The modern day French comic books take their lead from this. He did refer to Menapians (or Menapii) in his writing - they were a Belgic tribe of celts. They came to Ireland and are associated with the Wexford area chiefly. They also have a legacy in the name of Fermanagh (Gaelic, Fear Manach = men of the Menapians).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menapii

Johnmb

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the Celts must have had an origin though, it was said they stretched from Ireland through to the Black Sea, so where did they come from? Were they the indigenous people who adopted the Celtic language and culture? If they didn't arrive of invade, then did all those people kind of develop a culture together? was Fergus Mor mac Eirc a Celt? its not a very Celtic sounding name, I thought they were all Asterix and Obelisks etc?

Sorry, a million and one questions:D

Celtic is a linguistic term. You speak a Celtic language and you're a Celt. Languages can spread for many reasons. It was assumed a long time ago that a Celtic language came to Ireland and Britain via an influx of Celtic speakers. Now most people who study the subject believe that it was more likely due to strong trade links, i.e. no Celtic speakers came to Ireland, instead the native population, over a long period of time, adopted the language as a way to facilitate trade. Obviously, when we say "no" Celtic speakers came to Ireland, that is highly unlikely, as people most likely moved in both directions throughout the period, but not in any large scale numbers that can leave either an archaeological or genetic trace. The native Irish people came from Europe during the Mesolithic, with not much new genetic material being added until quite recently. Even the Vikings were limited to the few settlements they founded (Dublin, Waterford, etc.) and didn't make much impact outside those areas.

MarchDub

Johnmb wrote: »

Celtic is a linguistic term. You speak a Celtic language and you're a Celt. Languages can spread for many reasons. It was assumed a long time ago that a Celtic language came to Ireland and Britain via an influx of Celtic speakers. Now most people who study the subject believe that it was more likely due to strong trade links, i.e. no Celtic speakers came to Ireland, instead the native population, over a long period of time, adopted the language as a way to facilitate trade. Obviously, when we say "no" Celtic speakers came to Ireland, that is highly unlikely, as people most likely moved in both directions throughout the period, but not in any large scale numbers that can leave either an archaeological or genetic trace. The native Irish people came from Europe during the Mesolithic, with not much new genetic material being added until quite recently. Even the Vikings were limited to the few settlements they founded (Dublin, Waterford, etc.) and didn't make much impact outside those areas.

Excellent post - exactly what I was pointing to. Yet the notion of a "Celtic" people still lives on in myth and persists in being repeated in history books in spite of the fact that for over 50 years Irish archaeological evidence suggests no new intrusion of new people into Ireland around the time of the "supposed" arrival of the "Celts" i.e the Iron Age. How the language and the culture came to Ireland remains a debate.

We do know that both Celtic language and culture came to Ireland because it is a Celtic language - old Irish as it is known - that gets committed to writing when writing comes in with Christianity and the legends and stories that were recored at that time also suggests a "Celtic" culture reflective of the same culture found in continental Europe. The Old Irish law system - the Brehon Law - also reflects Celtic culture influence. So the term "Celtic" applies to a culture and language but not to a particular ethnic group as was previously supposed.

But how this happened is still a matter of debate among scholars. The new DNA concurs with the archaeological evidence but some philologists, like Donnchadh O Corrain, still maintain that some, even a small trickle, of people [maybe an elite group] came in and facilitated the spread of both language and culture.

topper75

Johnmb wrote: »

Now most people who study the subject believe that it was more likely due to strong trade links, i.e. no Celtic speakers came to Ireland, instead the native population, over a long period of time, adopted the language as a way to facilitate trade.

How much of the native population though would have been involved in trade - involved that is, to such an extent as to change the entire vernacular of the people? This seems hard to credit in the case of your average farming inhabitant of let's say modern-day Roscommon in 500BC. Yes, there must have been some fulltime traders coming and going, and richer farmers and petty kings could have undertaken occasional sailings to continental Europe, but the general populace would surely have been somewhat more insular, no?

Some warrior aristocracy may have come here from the northern fringes of the European mainland, subdued the locals, and imposed their new language over time.

Fratton Fred

so rather than the caltic people coming to Ireland, becoming a Celt was more an evolutionary part of the Irish (And, I presume, most of northern European) peoples?

pablomakaveli

I think Celt was more a Roman term. There were many different tribes in Gaul, Britain, Ireland and Iberia etc. and the Romans used the term Celt as a name for all these peoples.

They probably would'nt have called themselves Celts but these different tribes would have been more culturally similar.

Hagar

Johnmb wrote: »

Ireland isn't named after any of the peoples, its named after a Goddess, or quite possibly was the Goddess.

Ériu


A Dictionary of Celtic Mythology | 2004 | JAMES MacKILLOP | © A Dictionary of Celtic Mythology 2004, originally published by Oxford University Press 2004. ([URL="javascript:ShowHideBylineNum();"]Hide copyright information[/URL]) [URL="javascript:if%20(%20typeof(%20window['s']%20)%20!=%20'undefined'%20&&%20typeof(%20window['s']%20)%20!=%20'string')%20{s.tl(this,'o','Topic%20|%20Entry%20|%20Copyright');}ShowHideBylineNum();"]Copyright[/URL]

Ériu, Éire, Éri, Erin. One of three sisters, divine eponyms and tutelary goddesses of Ireland, along with Banba and Fódla; sometimes Ériu is a personification of Ireland. According to an oft-cited passage from the Lebor Gabála[Book of Invasions] Ériu is chosen to give her name to Ireland itself. When the Milesians invade Ireland, Ériu and her sisters greet them, each wanting the invader to name the country after herself. Asserting herself ahead of her sisters, Ériu meets the Milesians at Uisnech, tells them that Ireland is the fairest land under the sun, and flatters them as the most perfect race the world has ever seen. When one of the leaders, Donn mac Míled insults her, Ériu predicts that neither he nor his children will ever enjoy Ireland, and he subsequently drowns. The poet of the Milesians, Amairgin, promises Ériu that the country will bear her name. Éire is the Modern Irish spelling for Ériu, and Erin is an anglicized form. Banba and Fódla have been poetic references for Ireland. Ériu is traditionally described as wearing circlets or rings, which may imply, along with the etymology of her name, an identification with the sun or moon.

Although the Ériu of the Lebor Gabála can be identified with the Ériu who mothers Bres in Cath Maige Tuired[The Battle of Mag Tuired], these and variant texts present a conflicting picture of her pedigree. Her father is usually named as Delbáeth(2), her mother either Ernmas or Eirnin; her foster-father is Codal. She is usually married to Mac Gréine (sometimes known as Cethor), but she has a celebrated affair with Elatha, son of Delbáeth (1), to produce Bres. While not named in Baile in Scáil[Phantom's Frenzy], she is thought to be Lug Lámfhota's consort, a sovereignty figure, in that narrative. She is later killed at the Battle of Tailtiu by Suirge, where the Milesians slaughter all the kings and queens of the Tuatha Dé Danann.

Ériu is also named as the founder of the festival at Uisnech. As a personification of Ireland, she may be the queen ‘married’ in the sacred ritual marriage of fled bainisi or banais ríghe.

Bibliography
See Julius Pokorny , ‘Der Name Ériu’, Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, 15 (1925), 197–202;
T. F. O'Rahilly , ‘On the Origin of the Names Érainn and Ériu’, Ériu, 14 (1946), 7–28.



Chew on that for a while.

Johnmb

topper75 wrote: »

How much of the native population though would have been involved in trade - involved that is, to such an extent as to change the entire vernacular of the people? This seems hard to credit in the case of your average farming inhabitant of let's say modern-day Roscommon in 500BC. Yes, there must have been some fulltime traders coming and going, and richer farmers and petty kings could have undertaken occasional sailings to continental Europe, but the general populace would surely have been somewhat more insular, no?

Some warrior aristocracy may have come here from the northern fringes of the European mainland, subdued the locals, and imposed their new language over time.

Warrior aristocracies still usually leave behind archaeological and genetic evidence, and a structure in society that preserves their dominance. None of which exist in Ireland. The change in language would have happened over centuries, not a short period of time, much like the spread of Christianity, from the top down.
While I have no proof of the following, and very little proof could exist, it is possible that Goidelic became a second language to lots of people for whom the first languages were mutually unintelligible, so Goidelic wasn't just used for trade with Europe, it was also necessary for dealing with people from outside your own Tuath. That would give motivation not only to the people to learn it, but also to the top brass to encourage its adoption (if the Bards spoke Goidelic, then the people would have to know it to be entertained, and the rulers would always prefer their subjects to be entertained rather than bored!). Eventually, if you have two languages, one of which everyone spoke and the other only those in the local area spoke (and the locals could speak the former language), the latter becomes obsolete, and unless there is specific effort put into saving it, it will die out leaving only the one language.

il gatto

Tuatha De Danann ftw:D That's all factual, right?

Fratton Fred

Aah come on now Hagar, I tried chewing on that lot and it gave me bleedin lock jaw:D

Hagar

Q. How do you eat an elephant?
A. One bite at a time.



I wish fonts were enabled, I would love to be able to respond to this in the language and alphabet I learned as a child before the Dept of Education decided in their infinite wisdom that the future of the Irish language lay in writing it in a foreign script.

GhostInTheRuins

'Twas them Fir Bolg lads wasn't it? :pac:

MarchDub

Hagar wrote: »

I wish fonts were enabled, I would love to be able to respond to this in the language and alphabet I learned as a child before the Dept of Education decided in their infinite wisdom that the future of the Irish language lay in writing it in a foreign script.

Thanks for the great link! That's the way I learned Irish too - wonderful script. I also hate the substitution of the "h" for the old bulta - and I don't think it works as well for pronunciation anyway.

An Fear Aniar

Searhrún Ceitinn is the man to consult about this:

As regards the descendants of Milidh and their fleet there is no account of them until they put into port at Innbhear Slainghe in the lower part of Leinster, which place is called the harbour of Loch Garman to-day. The Tuatha De Danann assembled and congregated round them, and spread a magic mist above them, so that they imagined that the island in front of them was a hog's back, and hence Ireland is called Muicinis. Accordingly, the Tuatha De Danann, by means of magic, drove the sons of Milidh out from the land, and so they went round Ireland and put into port at Innbhear Sceine in West Munster; and when they had landed, they proceeded to Sliabh Mis, where they met Banbha with her women and her druids. Aimhirgin asked her her name. ‘Banbha is my name,’ said she; ‘and it is from me that this island is called Inis Banbha.’ Then they proceeded to Sliabh Eibhlinne where they met Fodla, and Aimhirgin asked her her name. ‘Fodla is my name,’ said she; ‘and it is from me that this land is called Fodla.’ They proceeded thence to Uisneach in Meath, where they met Eire. The poet asked her her name. ‘Eire is my name,’ said she, ‘and it is from me that this island is called Eire.’ And as a record of the above events is this stanza from the poem beginning, Let us relate the origin of the Gaels:

1. Banbha on Sliabh Mis, with hosts
Faint and wearied;
Fodla on Sliabh Eibhlinne, with groanings;
Eire on Uisneach.

These three queens were the wives of the three sons of Cearmad, and some seanchas say that there was no division of Ireland into three equal parts among the sons of Cearmad, but that each of the sons held it for a year in turn; and the name the country bore each year was the name of the wife of him who held the sovereignty that year. Here is a proof of this alternation of sovereignty:

1. Every year by turns
The chiefs held the kingdom;
Eire, Fodla, and Banbha,
The three wives of the very strong warriors.

The sons of Milidh proceeded thence to Tara, where they met the three sons of Cearmad, to wit, Eathur, Ceathur, Teathur, with their magic host; and the sons of Milidh demanded battle or a right to the sovereignty of the country from the sons of Cearmad, and these replied that they would act towards them according to the judgment of Aimhirgin, their own brother, and that if he delivered an unjust judgment against them, they would kill him by magic. The judgment Aimhirgin gave regarding his brothers and their host was that they should return to Innbhear Sceine, and that they should embark with all their host and go out the distance of nine waves on the high sea, and if they succeeded in coming to land again in spite of the Tuatha De Danann, they were to have sway over the country. And the Tuatha De Danann were satisfied with this, for they thought that their own magic would be able to prevent them from returning ever again to the country.

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100054/

O'Coonassa

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so rather than the caltic people coming to Ireland, becoming a Celt was more an evolutionary part of the Irish (And, I presume, most of northern European) peoples?

'Celtic' was just language and technology that came in waves to these islands from Europe. The base stock of the gene pool hasn't really altered much since people first arrived from the Basque region at the end of the last ice age. On top of these people came waves of 'Celtic' culture and technology and the ones on each island who got to the technology first came to dominate the others.

For instance in Ireland the Gaels wiped out Ivernic and Brythonic cultures and then had a good go at wiping out the Pictish culture in Scotland and the Brythonic culture in Wales.

topper75

Johnmb wrote: »

Warrior aristocracies still usually leave behind archaeological and genetic evidence, and a structure in society that preserves their dominance. None of which exist in Ireland. The change in language would have happened over centuries, not a short period of time, much like the spread of Christianity, from the top down.
While I have no proof of the following, and very little proof could exist, it is possible that Goidelic became a second language to lots of people for whom the first languages were mutually unintelligible, so Goidelic wasn't just used for trade with Europe, it was also necessary for dealing with people from outside your own Tuath. That would give motivation not only to the people to learn it, but also to the top brass to encourage its adoption (if the Bards spoke Goidelic, then the people would have to know it to be entertained, and the rulers would always prefer their subjects to be entertained rather than bored!). Eventually, if you have two languages, one of which everyone spoke and the other only those in the local area spoke (and the locals could speak the former language), the latter becomes obsolete, and unless there is specific effort put into saving it, it will die out leaving only the one language.

I'm following you to a certain extent, but there are still questions left.

The 'goidelic' didn't appear out of the ether - where did it come from? There couldn't have been only one version. How could there be different dialects around the island today it there was only one version (albeit only 3 of these now survive properly)? Is it conceivable that the local languages of the various tuath you refer to could disappear completely without a single trace if there were many of them being spoken just 2500 years ago across the whole island?

Remember the spread of English here took hundreds of years, backed by an explicit policy of a powerful empire and backed by printing technology and increasing literacy levels. With all this in English's favour, the spread was never completed on the island, with the older language holding out in 3 broad dialects in the western extremities.

Given English's difficulties in modern history, I think there should be some remnant of local languages well into A.D. in times when people were settled farmers for the most part. Clearly we have none.

I am not too convinced by the 'no archaelogical evidence' argument for the smallscale invasion of celtic speaking warriors. I mean, what should we expect to find as proof? I don't think anybody is claiming that the entire Irish population were replaced by Celts however. That indeed is a schoolhouse myth.

zesman

Didn't Irish filmaker Bob Quinn make a three part tv series about this a few years back. The conclusion he came to was that the Celtic language arrived via trade routes.

Johnmb

O'Coonassa wrote: »

The base stock of the gene pool hasn't really altered much since people first arrived from the Basque region at the end of the last ice age.

This seems to be a common misconception. The genetic evidence does not show that the first Irish people arrived from the Basque region, nor that the Irish are descended from Basques. What it does seem to show is that both the Irish and the Basques are descended from the peoples of Europe who were around in the Mesolithic, with very little genetic input from the people who arrived later.

Johnmb

topper75 wrote: »

I'm following you to a certain extent, but there are still questions left.

The 'goidelic' didn't appear out of the ether - where did it come from? There couldn't have been only one version. How could there be different dialects around the island today it there was only one version (albeit only 3 of these now survive properly)? Is it conceivable that the local languages of the various tuath you refer to could disappear completely without a single trace if there were many of them being spoken just 2500 years ago across the whole island?

Goidelic is just the name given to the version of Celtic that was spoken here. There is circumstantial evidence that at least one of the local languages survived into the 5th century AD, over in the west.

Remember the spread of English here took hundreds of years, backed by an explicit policy of a powerful empire and backed by printing technology and increasing literacy levels. With all this in English's favour, the spread was never completed on the island, with the older language holding out in 3 broad dialects in the western extremities.

Given English's difficulties in modern history, I think there should be some remnant of local languages well into A.D. in times when people were settled farmers for the most part. Clearly we have none.

The fact that English was an invading language that many of the people rebelled against may have been what saved Irish. If there was no Celtic invasion, then the people of the time would not have had much reason to resist the new, handier, language. As for remnants of the older languages, Goidelic was/is clearly a Celtic language, but there are differences from the other Celtic languages. Those differences could very easily be the remnants you refer to. Much like Hiberno-English currently is clearly a Germanic language, but has remnants of Irish within it.

I am not too convinced by the 'no archaelogical evidence' argument for the smallscale invasion of celtic speaking warriors. I mean, what should we expect to find as proof? I don't think anybody is claiming that the entire Irish population were replaced by Celts however. That indeed is a schoolhouse myth.

We'd expect to see new burials in keeping with those in place on the continent. Weapons and jewellery with identical designs to the continent being manufactured here. Evidence of attacks and destruction of the main power centres (e.g. Tara). Basically, we'd expect to see the same things we see in England regarding the Anglo-Saxon invasion. That was a small scale warrior invasion, that brought a new language but didn't have too much impact on the genetics, however they left plenty of other evidence.

Dionysus

Impressive arguments there, Johnmb. Well done.

Hookey

Johnmb wrote: »

We'd expect to see new burials in keeping with those in place on the continent. Weapons and jewellery with identical designs to the continent being manufactured here. Evidence of attacks and destruction of the main power centres (e.g. Tara). Basically, we'd expect to see the same things we see in England regarding the Anglo-Saxon invasion. That was a small scale warrior invasion, that brought a new language but didn't have too much impact on the genetics, however they left plenty of other evidence.

Agreed. The genetic evidence also shows the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion of what is now England wasn't really a wholesale migration of peoples. Just like Ireland, it looks like the locals in that part of the world were pretty static all the way back to the bronze age or earlier as well; its only on the northern coasts (east and west) that you find recent genetic change, with links back to Norway in the west and Denmark in the east. It looks like the Anglo-Saxons took over at the top and the people on the ground adopted their customs; there wasn't the supposed migration west of Romano-Celts into Wales.

And "Celt" is a very nebulous term anyway; just a collection of loosely related languages (modern understanding of P and Q celtic doesn't really fit with earlier European celtic languages) that happen to predate the Romans. The "celts" of antiquity didn't really share much other than trade links; they didn't even worship the same gods, so there's not really a unifiying celtic culture.

Bog Butter

MarchDub wrote: »

The BBC site suppled above is not very good because it is not accurate - Irish archeology has moved beyond the notion of a "Celtic invasion" for one. Better consult Irish produced books by Irish scholars such as Barry Raftery...

Here's a quote from Barry:

Archaeology presents us with a perplexing picture, one which is largely at variance with that presented by philology, early Irish history, folklore and tradition. It seems almost heretical to insist theat a Celtic invasion of Ireland never happened. ... Perhaps there was, indeed, a migration of 'Celts' to Ireland. The only problem is, archaeology cannot prove it.

MarchDub

malman wrote: »

Here's a quote from Barry:Quote:
Archaeology presents us with a perplexing picture, one which is largely at variance with that presented by philology, early Irish history, folklore and tradition. It seems almost heretical to insist theat a Celtic invasion of Ireland never happened. ... Perhaps there was, indeed, a migration of 'Celts' to Ireland. The only problem is, archaeology cannot prove it.

Raftery has been asked to explain that quote a number of times - especially as Simon James quoted it out of context- and he always insists [at least when I heard him] that he was making the point that archeology cannot support the notion of a Celtic invasion. In fact, it was Raftery's father who led the way in the breaking of the myth back in the 1960s saying that there was little evidence of an Celtic invasion in Ireland.