Romans in Wicklow

slowburner

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

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

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

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

CDfm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palladius was actually St.Patrick - any thoughts?

fontanalis

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

slowburner wrote: »

Palladius was actually St.Patrick - any thoughts?

Palladius is not Patrick. They are two different missionaries.

MarchDub

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

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

fontanalis

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

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

Was Saint Declan active around the same time as Patrick?

CDfm

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

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

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

Wibbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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