Celtic influence on Modern Irish culture?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Yahew

Veles wrote: »

Would you say agree that Celtic culture actually has had a significant influence on "Irish" culture practically speaking or is it mere revisionism from the nineteenth century to suggest it has?

High Celtic culture - that of the bards, brehon law, poetic competitions, the language itself. has little or no effect on modern Irish culture. Music survives in many strong spots ( Dingle for instance).

However, the whole "invented in the 19th century thing" annoys me. Some forms of irish nationalism were invented - sports mainly - others were attempt to regain what had been lost.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Yahew wrote: »

High Celtic culture - that of the bards, brehon law, poetic competitions, the language itself. has little or no effect on modern Irish culture. Music survives in many strong spots ( Dingle for instance).

However, the whole "invented in the 19th century thing" annoys me. Some forms of irish nationalism were invented - sports mainly - others were attempt to regain what had been lost.

Hurling wasn't an invention, although many of the rules were. What is unusual is that hurling is only played in areas where it was encouraged by Anglo-Irish landlords.

Wibbs

Yahew wrote: »

High Celtic culture - that of the bards, brehon law, poetic competitions, the language itself. has little or no effect on modern Irish culture. Music survives in many strong spots ( Dingle for instance).

I'd say the language informs quite a bit of modern Irish culture. Not in of itself, but it's major influence on Hiberno English. The music is more problematic IMHO. It's not very old basically. Certainly not going back to the "Celts". Guotars, fiddles and tin whistles are all within the last two centuries. The pipes aren't that much older in their current form, though would go back beyond that. Sean nos singing may have echoes of the celtic past alright.

However, the whole "invented in the 19th century thing" annoys me. Some forms of irish nationalism were invented - sports mainly - others were attempt to regain what had been lost.

Hurling was way older than Victorian mysticism. Arguing the whole celtic myth was a victorian conceit is pretty easy though. People who buy into the Celtic Ireland are buying into that conceit. We're not Celts. From our first thoughts written down we see ourselves as part of a larger world, not insular at all. We don't refer to ourselves as Celts that's for sure. That is a victorian invention, just like the anglo saxon notion most english people adhere to. They have slightly more reason, but for such a big saxon invasion they left feck all DNA markers in modern english people. The late 19th century was a charm for this stuff. Many peoples around the world started to look back to a halcyon past. Jews another example, with early Zionism starting up around that time.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Unlike hurling Gaelic Football is quite a recent invention, as its merely a local adaption of the generic ball games played all over Europe until groups such as the GAA, FA, and Rugby Union started formalizing rules.

On the subject of Irish music, I'd assume the harp has a longer history in Ireland than those recent introductions?

Wibbs

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

On the subject of Irish music, I'd assume the harp has a longer history in Ireland than those recent introductions?

Good point. Forgot about the harp Doh! A very old instrument and played back in the 8th century and beyond as they show up in illuminated manuscripts here. I wonder of the music would sound familiarly "Irish" today though. Can you play a jig or a reel on a harp?

steddyeddy

What about certain elements of the "celtic church" having an effect on modern society? I seem to remember certain elements of "catholic" traditions here like st.Brigid's cross seeming more pagan than catholic. Mayday is celebrated in some parts of the country I beleive also and you would be surprised how supersitious some people are regarding celtic tradtions.

More interesting to me would be the important aspects of celtic life we have abandoned to our detriment.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Bonfire night is celebrated on the summer solstice in the west... Thats a remnant of pre-Christian Ireland.

steddyeddy

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Bonfire night is celebrated on the summer solstice in the west... Thats a remnant of pre-Christian Ireland.

Yes thats the type of thing I was talking about. There used to be a thing in a small villiage in wicklow were they set part of the hill on fire as part of some sort of ceremony! That definatly seems to have celtic orgins.

JuliusCaesar

Wibbs wrote: »

We're not Celts.

Although our artefacts aren't Celtic (except 5 swords and 3 scabbards!), our burial customs weren't Celtic, we had no pottery at all for several hundred years (well, no shards survive) - the language is unequivocably Celtic.

There was always travel; the early medieval Christian map of the world connected Christian centres in Ireland to France, Spain etc.

So what are we?

Wibbs

Halloween is another old "celtic"/Irish one.

fontanalis

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Although our artefacts aren't Celtic (except 5 swords and 3 scabbards!), our burial customs weren't Celtic, we had no pottery at all for several hundred years (well, no shards survive) - the language is unequivocably Celtic.

There was always travel; the early medieval Christian map of the world connected Christian centres in Ireland to France, Spain etc.

So what are we?

Descendants of linguistically celtic (the term is a linguistic one and has morphed into almost an ethnic one). Now that the majority of irish people speak English does that make us Germanic?
I don't think we can put some easy anthropological tag on irish people. In a neat sentence I would say; the Irish are mainly Northern Europeans who are most similar to the British and then to people from North West France and along the North Sea Coast (at least that's what it seems the genetics is showing these days) .
Below is a map showing names for Irish groups around the times of the romans; in all likely hood many of these groups may not have identified with each other.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/celtictribes.shtml
Another link dealing with population movements.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/peoplingeurope.shtml#beaker
Another map (not sure how accurate the claims are to groups origins)
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire000.htm

fontanalis

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Although our artefacts aren't Celtic (except 5 swords and 3 scabbards!), our burial customs weren't Celtic, we had no pottery at all for several hundred years (well, no shards survive) - the language is unequivocably Celtic.

There was always travel; the early medieval Christian map of the world connected Christian centres in Ireland to France, Spain etc.

So what are we?

Has there not been some La Tene stuff found mainly in the north of Ireland?

Enkidu

It's very difficult to know. As fontanalis has already said Celtic is a purely linguistic term. It does have some culture overlap however. The "Original Celts" lived in Austria having arisen from a fusion of Indo-European peoples and native Danube farmers (most universally accepted theory). Celtic would basically have been a "corruption" of the Indo-European dialect spoken by the original Indo-Europeans who moved into the area.

Of course these original Celts had a culture and it's any reflection of this culture and their language that is considered Celtic. The first thing to note is that the culture and the language wasn't very different from Latin language and culture (at least before Etruscan and Greek contamination of Latin culture). However most places where the Celts spread they encountered a local culture, so most Celtic groups we know (like the Gauls) are a Celtic-native mixture.

If you consider the Pan-Celtic culture that arose throughout Europe, the Irish did possess that culture to some degree after taking in the language. Although notably less than others. The Gaul and Galatians (in Turkey) did come to call themselves Celts and not some some native term for themselves. However the British and Irish never did.

That said, Irish culture of around the 5th century was very similar to Gaul. Similar social organisation, e.t.c.

Also the language is soaked with Celtic culture. For instance, even today in English, Irish people often speak with long drawn out tautologies:
You're telling the truth or a lie to be honest.
Which is something the Gauls did that drove the Romans mad.

Also, one last thing, all the Celts feared the sky falling down. From the most ancient Greek references of the Galatians, the Roman records of the Gauls and Irish and Welsh records, each civilization records that a warrior fears only one thing, the collapse of the sky. A Galatian chief once told Alexander that it was his only fear and Irish chiefs are recording saying the exact same thing in the 11th century.

fontanalis

I read on another site about a talk given on bog bodies fairly recently. The speaker claimed the style (cutting of nipples) was similar to that practiced in what is now modern day Denmark.

Red Hand

Gael, Gaelic, Gaelige, Gaul, Galacia (Turkey), Galacia (Spain)...they may not have called themselves Celts, but the language connection is there.

fontanalis

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Gael, Gaelic, Gaelige, Gaul, Galacia (Turkey), Galacia (Spain)...they may not have called themselves Celts, but the language connection is there.

Well gael is supposed to come from a welsh word for raider and gailica (according to wiki) derives from the name of a celtic tribe and the language is supposed to be celtic influenced.

Yahew

fontanalis wrote: »

Well gael is supposed to come from a welsh word for raider and gailica (according to wiki) derives from the name of a celtic tribe and the language is supposed to be celtic influenced.

Why would Irish derive the name for themselves as Gael from that?

I tend to disagree with the "wouldn't see themselves as one people" - if people could understand each other, and have the same laws and customs then they did see themselves as one people. And others, outside, did too.

In England Gildas saw himself as a Briton, hostile and separate to the Angles and Saxons, later Bede ( who knows about Gildas) sees himself as Anglo Saxon, and sees differences between Picts, Scots, Britons, Danes and Anglo Saxons on that Island. Except for Picts whose culture ( but not people) - have disappeared, thats where we are now, the Britons being the Welsh and the Danes back in Denmark.

Same in Ireland - a people with a common language, culture and laws, as fer as we know.

fontanalis

Yahew wrote: »

Why would Irish derive the name for themselves as Gael from that?

I tend to disagree with the "wouldn't see themselves as one people" - if people could understand each other, and have the same laws and customs then they did see themselves as one people. And others, outside, did too.

In England Gildas saw himself as a Briton, hostile and separate to the Angles and Saxons, later Bede ( who knows about Gildas) sees himself as Anglo Saxon, and sees differences between Picts, Scots, Britons, Danes and Anglo Saxons on that Island. Except for Picts whose culture ( but not people) - have disappeared, thats where we are now, the Britons being the Welsh and the Danes back in Denmark.

Same in Ireland - a people with a common language, culture and laws, as fer as we know.

I don't know why gael was then used, after all Scot is a Roman nickname for Irish raiders, and pict was more or less a nick name given by the romans for people past their boundary.
I suppose I might be getting bogged down in the what did people think of themselves as.
Saying people mightn't have identified with each other across the island might be taking it too far but it's safe to say there may have been some regionalism at least.
Take the group called the cruithne/cruithin; their range is limited mainly to the north. I the name means people of designs, could this be a name for peopel carrying the la tene culture as it's mainly limited to the north. There was a group in East Galway called the Soghain who were meant to be descended from them. In that area you also have the turoe stone which is supposed to be in the la tene style. Laois is supposed to be named after one of these groups.
Also another group I read about were the laighin and the earainn; from what I've read that the laighin were meant to be linked to the brigantes of northern england. This is supposed to be where the pagan celebration of brigid may have come from.
I think the earainn were based in munster and were meant to have spoken a language called the iron language ( I can't tell if this was another dialect of q celtic or a different form).
Then another group the fir domnann are supposed to be linked the dumnonni of what is now Devon.
I wonder if the Roman expansion cause a lot more movement between Britain and Ireland.
I'm not an expert in this era by any means but find it very interesting. I'd be grateful for any further info or corrections.

Enkidu

fontanalis wrote: »

I think the earainn were based in munster and were meant to have spoken a language called the iron language ( I can't tell if this was another dialect of q celtic or a different form).

As far as we can tell, based on what is preserved of the Iron language combined with other archaeological and historical knowledge, the Iron language was P-Celtic. It was possibly/probably the original ancestral language of Erainn who invaded from Britain.

Ireland wasn't very homogeneous, at least early in the historical period. For instance in Munster alone, when the Erainn arrived they made the local people their vassals (these vassals would become known as the Déise, which is Old Irish for vassal, in Modern Irish it just means "person from Tipperary or Waterford").

The Erainn probably spoke the Iron language, a P-Celtic language closely related to Gaulish and even more closely related to Primitive Welsh. They eventually dispersed into several powerful families ruling Munster, for example:
The Corcu Duibne
The Múscraige
The Uí Liatháin

However then the Deirgthine then arrived from Gaul, growing in power until they gave rise to the Eóganachta, who built Cashel and ruled Munster. They raised the Déise from their original low social status and in time one of these Déise families would become very powerful (Brian Bóruma mac Cennétig).

So in Munster alone, we have three groups, natives (Déise), the Erainn (Iverni to the Greeks) and the Gaulish Deirgthine. Originally none of these groups would have viewed themselves as "the same group".

However at some point in the 4th Century standing stones with a new language, Goidelic, on them emerge across Munster, the first in Corcu Duibne territory. When the Christian era arrives this language is now being spoken across the country, as evidenced by the fact that it was used by monks from North to South. A general Irish culture emerges from the use of this one language and the new Christian culture. Where the language came from is unknown.

Yahew

Where is the record of what people actually spoke prior to this, since it must be oral?

Anyway, literacy will make languages, or dialects, which are similar enough conform to be one standard by design. The language hardly arose from anything else but the oral tradition at the time.

Enkidu

Yahew wrote: »

Where is the record of what people actually spoke prior to this, since it must be oral?

Well the Digthine came from Gaul, so baring some bizarre set of circumstances they couldn't have originally spoke Irish. The Erainn did arrive from Britain, which was P-Celtic speaking at the time, so again it isn't likely that they spoke Irish.

Yahew wrote: »

Anyway, literacy will make languages, or dialects, which are similar enough conform to be one standard by design. The language hardly arose from anything else but the oral tradition at the time.

Yes, at the time. When Christianity arrived Irish dialects were being spoken from North to South, as evidenced by the fact that the monastic standard (which in modern times is called Old Irish) was accepted quite readily. However that doesn't change the fact that none of the powerful groups in Ireland could have ancestrally spoken Irish as they all came from P-Celtic speaking regions, leaving its origin an open question.

Yahew

Unless p and q celtic were quite similar 2000 plus years ago - they are further away from each other in time now than English and German. And the writing systems possibly acerbated the difference - what parts of the latin alphabet chosen in wales might matter to make the languages become quite different. I cant read welsh, but I find out similarities occasionally: that an island is Ynys and I can see links in Innis. In fact, its the same thing written differently. There are plenty of similar pronunciations hidden by radically different choices of how they were alphabetised back in the day.


So the modern differences appear greater, than maybe they are.

Enkidu

Yahew wrote: »

Unless p and q celtic were quite similar 2000 plus years ago - they are further away from each other in time now than English and German. And the writing systems possibly acerbated the difference - what parts of the latin alphabet chosen in wales might matter to make the languages become quite different. I cant read welsh, but I find out similarities occasionally: that an island is Ynys and I can see links in Innis. In fact, its the same thing written differently. There are plenty of similar pronunciations hidden by radically different choices of how they were alphabetised back in the day.
So the modern differences appear greater, than maybe they are.

I can see what you mean. However linguists and historians don't look at the Modern forms, but the ancient ones. So one can already see that Old Welsh and Old Irish are quite different to the point of being mutually incomprehensible, same with Primitive Irish and Brythonic. Also we have direct testimony from the 7th and 8th century of the Iron language being "dense and difficult" and "impossible to understand" for Irish speakers.