Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Early Invaders of Ireland
Options
-
02-11-2011 8:07pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
sensibleken wrote: »we know they are mythical and not to be taken as a historical source. they are fantastic and a real cultural asset but I wouldnt take any of it as hostorical fact. Rememer Cesair, irelands first inhabitant, is said to be the granddaughter of Noah
Well not only that but the Irish language was crafted on the Plains of Shinar (Sumeria -- Shinar = hebrew name) by the King of Scythia so as to be the "best of every languages". Mythology is an important part of ones cultural patrimony but it shouldn't be mistaken for fact. I would say though there is probably a folk-memory surviving of incoming groups.
As Enkidu mentioned the Tuatha Dé have members who are pan-celtic Deities. The prime example been Lugh (Lú) who is a reflex of the pan-celtic Lugus. The city of Lyon in France deriving it's name from the Gaulish settlement of "Lug[o]dunon". Perhaps in modern Irish we would write it as "Dún Lugh" (or Dún Lú)
0 -
Dubhthach is really the one for modern genetic studies, but I think, we mainly have Celtic descent only on the paternal line.
At a most basic level 70% of men in Ireland belong to a clade of Haplogroup R1b called L21 (R1b1a2a1a1b4 ). What this means is that these men all carry a "marker" (called a SNP) on their Y-chromosome called L21. This implies that they all descend from the first man in which L21 arose.
There has been some calculations done on when this man lived, in general the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) for all L21+ men is believe to have lived between 3700 and 4000 years ago. (2000-1700BC). The highest genetic variance is reckoned to be on the Continent in North-eastern France/Western Germany. This implies that it first arose there and later spread.
Here's a distrubition map showing some of known data on the spread of L21
The current data on ancient DNA (aDNA) shows a complete lack of R1b (or R1a for that matter) among Neolithic men. For example Ötzi the Iceman belongs to Haplogroup G2a4 (makes up about 1-2% of Irishmen), other major group been Haplogroup I (which is considerably more common in Ireland then G)
It's quite possible that we have seen a major replacement on the male line across Western Europe, tied in possibly with the arrival of metallurgy.
Some of argue that L21 quite closely matches to map of the "Atlantic Bronze Age" which existed between 1200BC and 800BC, some would also argue that it's possible that this was a "proto-Celtic" speaking population.0 -
Yes but saying Cesair is Eire's first inhabitant is like saying that the FirBolg, Tuatha de Danann are therefore also actual inhabitants.
Therefore the bible is a collection of story's and legends with as much historical accuracy as the abovementioned
I think it's hypocritical to assume that one is somehow superior to another.
The pre-Celtic peoples are as real as the Celts and the predominance of red-hair and Norse traits are a telling fact that Scandinavia and Denmark left a mark on Eire. This being prior to the Vikings.0 -
Advertisement
-
Watch Ryder wrote: »Yes but saying Cesair is Eire's first inhabitant is like saying that the FirBolg, Tuatha de Danann are therefore also actual inhabitants.
Therefore the bible is a collection of story's and legends with as much historical accuracy as the abovementioned
I think it's hypocritical to assume that one is somehow superior to another.
The pre-Celtic peoples are as real as the Celts and the predominance of red-hair and Norse traits are a telling fact that Scandinavia and Denmark left a mark on Eire. This being prior to the Vikings.
cesair wasnt. thats the point, it has silly claims saying that noahs granddaughter
was the first irish person so you cant erally take any of the rest of it as truthfull0 -
Yes but saying Cesair is Eire's first inhabitant is like saying that the FirBolg, Tuatha de Danann are therefore also actual inhabitants.
Therefore the bible is a collection of story's and legends with as much historical accuracy as the abovementioned
I think it's hypocritical to assume that one is somehow superior to another.
I think the point is not that one is more believable than the other, it's that they are both made up.The pre-Celtic peoples are as real as the Celts and the predominance of red-hair and Norse traits are a telling fact that Scandinavia and Denmark left a mark on Eire. This being prior to the Vikings.
Of course the Bronze Age population of Ireland are as real as those who came after them! I don't really know what your trying to say here.
The whole idea of successive waves of invasion leading to massive cultural and social change is pretty much discredited at this stage. I think the DNA map posted by Dubhthach show that.
In your first post you have the wrong dates for the Bronze Age & Iron Age. The following are the generally accepted dates;
Mesolithic c. 7000–4000 BC
Neolithic c. 4000–2400 BC
Bronze Age c. 2400–500 BC
Iron Age c. 500 BC–AD 4000 -
-
-
The idea of 'invasions' meaning a new group of people coming in to the country, kicking ass and taking over is no longer considered valid. There is next to no archaeological evidence to support it.
The arrival of population groups who mixed with the native population and thrived due to the fact that they had new technology (Bronze) is more plausible. This is borne out through archaeology and paleobotany. It also fits the general DNA profile.
I agree with you, invasion of course is such an emotive word. Where my contention was of course is that the "acculturation model" is unviable on by itself due to the Genetic evidence.
There are three genetic profiles that can be viewed in Ireland.
Male Haplogroups: Dominanted by R1b connected with Indo-European speakers across Europe -- R1b originates in Central Asia
Female Haplogroups (Mitochondria): Showing considerable amount of retention of haplogroups that are mesolithic
Autosomonal DNA (DNA across other 44 chromosomes -- excluding XY): -- Showing different levels of admixture of ancestral components.
For example most Indo-European speaking populations in Europe have between 5 and 10% "West Asian" admixture in their autosomnal DNA. Basques have next to none in comparison. This implies an ancient admixing where a larger "resident" population absorbed the incoming population. Over time the resulting mixture spread population wide.
To go by example with Bronze above, obviously you could have had quite a small group coming in over time due to higher social prestige/wealth, benefits of Trade (feature of Atlantic bronze age) they became socially dominant to such an extent that their language became dominant.
Here's an admixture chart taken from Dodecad project. Showing admixture across different populations:
The Irish particpants in the project (n=20) have the following average admixture (using Euro7 calculator)- Northwestern: 68.7% -- highest in Argyll_1KG (Scotland) sample: 75.2%
- Northeastern: 11.0% -- highest in Lithuanian sample: 85.7%
- Southwestern: 10.2% -- highest in IBS (Iberian) sample: 47.9%
- Caucasus: 7.2% -- highest in Abkasians sample: 66.6%
- Southeastern: 2.8% -- highest in Armenian sample: 59.7%
- Far_Asian: 0.1% -- highest in Miaozu (China) sample: 99.9%
Obviously in the above ancestral components "Northwestern" represents the oldest component in this part of the world thence it forming the dominant component of most irish people genome.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59004
Just to say it's always a consistent pleasure and an education to read both dubhthach's and Enkidu's posts on such matters. Where opinion is based on knowledge and research, rather than opinion for opinions sake. Plus they both patiently answer questions from windowlickers such as myself.
As for the annals, I think a large pinch of sodium chloride should be applied for all sorts of reasons. One they were trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to tie themselves in with the greater European/christian world and moreover simply didn't have the information, or enough information about the past like we have today to make a definitive stand on things. That said buried in the stuff they wanted to set down about our past some truth may yet be gleaned.
Me? Irish on the male side with older European/Basque stuff on the female side and a chunk of Neandertal* while I'm at it. Feckin blow ins the rest of ya.
* Feck off.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
As for the annals, I think a large pinch of sodium chloride should be applied for all sorts of reasons. One they were trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to tie themselves in with the greater European/christian world and moreover simply didn't have the information, or enough information about the past like we have today to make a definitive stand on things. That said buried in the stuff they wanted to set down about our past some truth may yet be gleaned.
I think from the 6th century the Annals are fairly alright, obviously they often reflect politics depending on where they were written. The reality though is that more then likely a "political compromise" was made to rewrite the "pre-history" of Ireland during the 7th/8th century. The historians often called the drafters of this the "Synthetic historians".
We know from archaelogy that most of the La Tène influenced finds are in the "northern half" (north of line Galway <-> Dublin) of the country, one example of such an influence is the finds of Beehive Querns
What's interesting about this line is in "Cycle of Kings" the area north of this line is Leath Cuinn -- the half of Conn (of the hundred battles). Whereas the area south would be Leath Mogha -- the half of Mogh Nuadhat (slave of god Nuadha)
Conn of course is the figurative ancestor of the wider Connachta which includes both the Uí Néill and the three Connachta dynasties (Uí Fiachrach, Uí Briúin and Uí Uí nAilello)
Mogh Nuadhat is the figurative ancestor of the Eoghnachta of Munster via Eoghain Mór. In turn both are supposedly descendant from the two sons of Míl. Conn been of the "race of Éiremhón" , Mogh Nuadhat of the "race of Éibhear Fionn" (See Keating's Foras Feasa ar Éirinn from 1634 here: http://celt.ucc.ie/published/T100054/index.html )
What they are basically trying to do here is to recognise the political situation on the ground. You had a Uí Néill dominated "northern half" and a Eoghnachta dominated "southern half" (Leinstermen paid a Boru to Munster etc.)
By painting a picture that this was the situation all way back to the sons of Míl it justifies the status quo of the "political situation" on the ground when the history was been written. So in my opinon anyways there is probably elements of folk-memory woven through the "historic fiction" of the pre-christian era.
The connection between the Uí Néill and the wider Connachta actually seems to be backed up by genetic evidence. Specifically by a subgroup of L21 which carry the marker M222 (eg. they are L21+, M222+). In Ireland this is heavily associated with men bearing surnames connected to the Uí Néill (Doherty, Maclochlainn, Cahan, Gallagher etc.), the Uí Briúin (O'Connor, McDonagh, McDermot, O'Rourke) and the Uí Fiachrach (Dowd, Shaughnessy etc.)
Trinity college found it at very low levels in southern half of Ireland in comparison. What's interesting about M222 is it's also found in Scottish Lowlands and Northern England.There's some implication that there is higher genetic diversity there which could imply that M222 in Ireland came with men who might have bore La Tène items (finds from 300BC onwards).
Surnames connected to the Eoghnachta appear to form their own cluster (though a distinctive marker SNP hasn't been found let), like M222+ men they are also L21+0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I was looking for maps regarding archaelogical finds of items of La Tène "style" I came across the following which seems to be an extract from a book:
Here's another map taken from here:
The highest concentration of Ogham Stones are in Corca Dhuibhne (Dingle penisula) where there are over 70 known stones.
Interesting Dichotomy between the two.0 -
-
This is why Irish history is so hard to understand.
The only people with a material cultural connection to the Celts are in the North, but the first evidence of Irish is from stones in the South.
Every identified invader of Ireland (Eoghanachta, Corcu Duibne, e.t.c.) are from Britain, who spoke P-type Celtic, but by the historical period everybody, except for a few hold outs in Mayo and Waterford spoke Irish which is Q-Celtic.
The most obvious thing to suggest is that Irish results from the original Halstatt-expansion of the Celts, who had the Q-sound, but that Welsh and other P-type Celtic languages are from the later La Tène expansion. However why are Irish and Welsh grammatically similar?
Even more confusingly computer algorithms which can group Indo-European languages via analysing their grammar and lexicon, identify Celtic as the least unified group in all of Indo-European, even though it's the only one that comes from historically identified migrations of a specific people.
Irish myths seem to be composed of two completely independent mythologies. Crom Cruach's stories never really appear in the Tuatha De Dannan cycle.
Well I think part of the issue is that what we define as "Celts" is tied up with La Tène material culture (and before that Hallstat), however this only covers the period from about 800C onwards. In general it's thought that Hallstat is a follow on from the Urnfield which was a later Bronze age culture. (1300-750BC)
Urnfield in Red, Atlantic Bronze age in Green, Nordic Bronze age in Yellow.
Here's a map of the Atlantic Bronze Age:
Some of data I've seen from Computer linguistic phylogeny implies a seperation of Irish from Welsh about 900BC. If this is true this is before the rise of Hallstat material culture. Now we know from Celtic speaking populations in Spain (Celtiberian) that like Ireland there is a scaricty of both Hallstat and La Tène finds. A potential scenario is that Proto-Celtic is quite early and spread across the region during the Bronze age (or even earlier).
Insullar Celtic speaking populations are high in L21+, it's also found in Spain and down into Iberia:
From a DNA point of view some theorize that La Tène material culture expansion is linked to that of L21 brother U152 (both share parent clade P312)
It has high concentrations in Alps, Northern Italy (Cisalpine Gaul) and into France itself. It's relatively rare in Ireland, most men in Ireland don't carry "native" Irish surnames (most but not all)
So in theory we might see a case of two waves.- 1st wave speakers of Proto-Celtic -- well before soundshift of Q -> P
- Later groups coming in who had been "Gaulicised " in material culture etc.
We know that there was Gaulish movement into Southern Britain from about 300BC onwards, this can be seen by fact that "Southern tribes" struck coins like those of Tribes in France.
The close connection between Irish and Welsh with regards to grammar/morphology (Initial mutations, VSO) could be due to fact that early Church in Ireland was a "British" dominated church. By "British" I mean speakers of Brythonic Celtic, as a result it wouldn't be surprising if this has an affect especially as those who might have first written in Irish might have been able to speak Brythonic as well.0 -
I was looking for maps regarding archaelogical finds of items of La Tène "style" I came across the following which seems to be an extract from a book:
Here's another map taken from here:
The highest concentration of Ogham Stones are in Corca Dhuibhne (Dingle penisula) where there are over 70 known stones.
Interesting Dichotomy between the two.
La téne finds at loughcrew at Cairn L led to eroneously dating the passage tombs at only a few hundred BC.
Im not sure I see the dichotomy as causality, after all theres close to 800 years between La tene and ogham. The dingle penninsula is littered with monastic ruins from the 4th, 5th century which would explain their close concentration. one of the reasons its my favourite place in ireland
0 -
sensibleken wrote: »La téne finds at loughcrew at Cairn L led to eroneously dating the passage tombs at only a few hundred BC.
Im not sure I see the dichotomy as causality, after all theres close to 800 years between La tene and ogham. The dingle penninsula is littered with monastic ruins from the 4th, 5th century which would explain their close concentration. one of the reasons its my favourite place in ireland
4th century would surely be bit early for monastic ruins no? Earliest reference in general to Christianity in Ireland is in the 5th century. The question though is when can Ogham usage be dated to. The language that it is written in is very archaic. Enkidu would probably be able to explain it better, but in general it shows several features which are not present in Old Irish (6-10th century). In structure it's the closest in resemblence to what little of Gaulish inscriptions that are left (apart from not taking part in number sound changes). Some have theorized that "Archaic Irish" was a learned register of the language that was intentionally archaic compare to "caint na nDaoine" the same thing of course happened 1000 years later with the Bardic standard. If so it could be possible that the shift in language register to what became "Old Irish" is due to Christiansation.
One interesting dating with regards to Ogham is to do with Silchester Ogham Stone in England. This was found in a well in the Roman site of Silchester. It would seem the well was filled in near end of 4th and at latest the 5th century.
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-769-1/ahds/dissemination/pdf/vol44/44_001_023.pdf
We know that the Ogham Stone near Slane in Louth is also dated to either late 5th century or early 6th century.
MAQI CAIRATINI AVI INEQUAGLASI
==
Mac Cairthinn mac Coelboth of the Uí Enechglaiss
The annals put his death at the battle of Mag Femen in 446/447 (A. Ulster / A. Innisfallen)though given that dating is probably out it could be anywhere up to 530.0 -
-
sensibleken wrote: »My mistake sorry. Its not 4th century its 5th and 6th. The telling thing about Ogham is that it is based on the Roman alphabet and is simply and alternative script for decorating grave markers.
Yes but there was quite abit of through and fro between Ireland and Roman Britain (before 400), this can be seen both in Roman finds as well as the theory that some of the Irish settlement in Wales was in the form of Foederati. If the Silchester Ogham stone does date from the end of 4th century it implies at least a small Irish speaking community within Roman Britain.
Silchester is quite far from the coastal areas that Irish raids/settlement is normally associated with during the "migration period" (post fall of Roman Empire)
0 -
Yes but there was quite abit of through and fro between Ireland and Roman Britain (before 400), this can be seen both in Roman finds as well as the theory that some of the Irish settlement in Wales was in the form of Foederati. If the Silchester Ogham stone does date from the end of 4th century it implies at least a small Irish speaking community within Roman Britain.
Silchester is quite far from the coastal areas that Irish raids/settlement is normally associated with during the "migration period" (post fall of Roman Empire)
Oh absolutely. Thats in fact what I mean. there are enough roman artifacts in leinster to suggest trade and even a level of diplomacy0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement