"No archaeological evidence..."

markesmith

I've read in several places that there is no archaeological evidence for any form of invasion or large migration of Celtic peoples during the Iron Age or before. This is often used as a means of backing up the acculturation (sp?) model, that says that we became a Celtic-speaking country through trade, cultural superiority etc.

But what about Brittany? Is there archaeological evidence of an invasion/large migration there? It seems accepted that this occurred in the wake of the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain.

It seems strange that so many historians now doubt that there was large-scale movement into Ireland to escape the advancing Romans and, later, the marauding Anglo-Saxons...

What are your thoughts, archaeology peeps?

slowburner

markesmith wrote: »

I've read in several places that there is no archaeological evidence for any form of invasion or large migration of Celtic peoples during the Iron Age or before. This is often used as a means of backing up the acculturation (sp?) model, that says that we became a Celtic-speaking country through trade, cultural superiority etc.

But what about Brittany? Is there archaeological evidence of an invasion/large migration there? It seems accepted that this occurred in the wake of the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain.

It seems strange that so many historians now doubt that there was large-scale movement into Ireland to escape the advancing Romans and, later, the marauding Anglo-Saxons...

What are your thoughts, archaeology peeps?

Difficulties arise when the invasion word is mentioned in connection with the Celts.
Invasion implies a deliberate military action imposed by an empire and there was no definite Celtic empire.
It was the gradual spread of a culture with a superior metallurgical technology - iron, and a new language.
Generally speaking, the consensus is that the dissemination of Celtic culture throughout Ireland went on over several centuries. Equally, the disappearance of Bronze Age culture was a gradual process, although its metalworking survived throughout the period, just to complicate the archaeological picture.
There are however, relatively distinct 'arrivals' as evidenced by the appearance of the (ill-defined in Ireland) Hallstatt, and later La Téne cultures and you can take your intellectual chances by saying these are the Milesians of the Lebor Gabála Érenn/Book of Invasions and perhaps too that the Fír Bolg were the extant BA people. Certainly, the various annals like to create the impression that these were discrete invasions but this is more for dramatic effect rather than accuracy.
One of the more interesting things about the connection between Irish and continental Celtic tribes, is the relationship between the Monaig/Monach of Leinster (Ulster later) and the Menapii of northern Gaul. The only documented Celtic invasion is the invasion of southeastern England by the Belgae.
The Menappii's retreat in the face of Roman advance is thought to be 'to the woods' northeast of the Rhine and not across the sea to Ireland. Precisely when they arrived in Ireland and over how long a period is typical of the mists surrounding this complex period. Allied to this misty picture is the scarcity of Iron Age burials in Ireland.
As to the relationship between Brittany and Ireland in archaeological terms, I have a fondness for the existence of coastal promontory forts and the possibility of a relationship between them and the Veneti tribe of Brittany (Armorica).
Note the markedly lower distribution of coastal promontory forts in the regions populated by the Menapii in the image below taken from Archaeology.ie. (We might be able to discount the forts close to Dublin as being from ...ahem...another Iron Age culture.)

It is a curiosity all the same, this business of Ireland somehow remaining insulated from invasions that were so pervasive elsewhere. We are faced with the thought that the challenges offered by the seas between these western islands is an inadequate explanation for Ireland's resistance to change.

robp

I think such refugees leaving Gaul or Britain would have been coming to late to account for Celtic culture and language in Ireland.

There certainly is evidence of some iron age refugee movements into Ireland, some Romans civilians, maybe some Celts too.

slowburner

robp wrote: »

I think such refugees leaving Gaul or Britain would have been coming to late to account for Celtic culture and language in Ireland.

There certainly is evidence of some iron age refugee movements into Ireland, some Romans civilians, maybe some Celts too.

There is?
I'd love to know more

robp

slowburner wrote: »

There is?
I'd love to know more

Well I would take the Stonyford burial in Kilkenny as an example. tho maybe I am conflating terms. I was referring to people from the Roman world not specially those from Rome.

slowburner

I heard that strontium analysis has demonstrated that these burials were definitely of foreigners. Beyond that, I know little. We'll just have to wait for LIARI's publication due soonish, I think.
Wouldn't it be stunning if they proved to be Italian?

Reader1937

A unique issue for the islands resistance to incoming people is that it is the last island to go to - there is nowhere else for people to be forced to - it is not that the sea prevented people from coming to the island - it is that the sea prevented people from leaving and moving on to somewhere else to the West.

markesmith

Reader1937 wrote: »

A unique issue for the islands resistance to incoming people is that it is the last island to go to - there is nowhere else for people to be forced to - it is not that the sea prevented people from coming to the island - it is that the sea prevented people from leaving and moving on to somewhere else to the West.

But people would not have necessarily known that it was the last island to the West?

Excellent post as always, slowburner!

It seems strange that, in a time when the seas were treated as more a facilitator than a barrier to long-distance movement, that there wasn't significant input from the rest of Europe after the Neolithic...

Reader1937

markesmith wrote: »

But people would not have necessarily known that it was the last island to the West?

Excellent post as always, slowburner!

It seems strange that, in a time when the seas were treated as more a facilitator than a barrier to long-distance movement, that there wasn't significant input from the rest of Europe after the Neolithic...

The idea that this island was always the receiver from the East is bizarre to me. My centricity I am afraid. I am sure there were significant inputs from everywhere, into everywhere. How can the generation of ideas gravitate to a compass point? Given that the sea was a facilitator to long distance movement, I imagine movement was more mercurial and human, than formulaic.

cfuserkildare

The Gaelic speaking people were an invading force also, were they not?

The original Irish were like the midlands Scots, we were not Gaelic speakers in Central Scotland, and apparently never were, Scots Gaelic was brought there from somewhere else, Hence languages / dialects like the Dorric language developing.

As regards the "last island to the West ", there are many legends of a land to the west, possibly Atlantis among them, Hybrasil another.

Perhaps the Elders new something we don't.

robp

cfuserkildare wrote: »

The Gaelic speaking people were an invading force also, were they not?

The original Irish were like the midlands Scots, we were not Gaelic speakers in Central Scotland, and apparently never were, Scots Gaelic was brought there from somewhere else, Hence languages / dialects like the Dorric language developing.

As regards the "last island to the West ", there are many legends of a land to the west, possibly Atlantis among them, Hybrasil another.

Perhaps the Elders new something we don't.

Its highly unlikely they were an invading force as such. they may have been an intrusive elite though, defusing into ireland through landscape focal points like hillforts. On the otherhand Irish hillforts might be a bit too early for this.

Simon.d

robp wrote: »

Its highly unlikely they were an invading force as such. they may have been an intrusive elite though, defusing into ireland through landscape focal points like hillforts. On the otherhand Irish hillforts might be a bit too early for this.

I've often wondered about a very big fortified headland here in Waterford called Dunabrattin (Fort of the British).. Could it have been such a focal point?.. Or maybe sharing similar ties with the Roman British world as Drumanagh Promontory Fort...

cfuserkildare

Perhaps the Hill-Forts are not too early.

For some reason ringforts in UK are listed as 2000-1000 BC, but here they are listed as 500-1200 AD. So it is possible that the dates may be wrong.

I always wondered about the timing of building phases, Egypt, Ireland, China, South America, and how do anomalies fit into that schedule. Like Vitrified Forts in Scotland and here, We cannot recreate the results using period techniques and veither can we accurately date them.

bawn79

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Perhaps the Hill-Forts are not too early.

For some reason ringforts in UK are listed as 2000-1000 BC, but here they are listed as 500-1200 AD. So it is possible that the dates may be wrong.

I always wondered about the timing of building phases, Egypt, Ireland, China, South America, and how do anomalies fit into that schedule. Like Vitrified Forts in Scotland and here, We cannot recreate the results using period techniques and veither can we accurately date them.

Are there any vitrified forts in Ireland? I still remember watching Arthur C Clarkes episode about the ones in Scotland as a boy.

cfuserkildare

Apparently there are a few in Cavan and near Derry.

robp

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Perhaps the Hill-Forts are not too early.

For some reason ringforts in UK are listed as 2000-1000 BC, but here they are listed as 500-1200 AD. So it is possible that the dates may be wrong.

I always wondered about the timing of building phases, Egypt, Ireland, China, South America, and how do anomalies fit into that schedule. Like Vitrified Forts in Scotland and here, We cannot recreate the results using period techniques and veither can we accurately date them.

Generally speaking Irish hillforts appear 1200- 1000BC while the earliest phase of British hillforts is 800 - 600 BC. Irish hillforts don't really appear to a foreign introduction. However according to Richard Bradley there is an earlier phase of hillforts in eastern Britain that do predate Irish examples.

So its possible the Irish language emerged here c. 1000 BC on the back of the rise of hillforts and the Bronze Age warrior elites but its not certain.

dubhthach

There is some intrusive evidence coming in via the North-East during the period after 200BC. I always find it interesting that things like the "Beehive Quern" boundary maps onto the quasi-mythological/historical division of Ireland into Leath Cuinn and Leath Mogha. Similiarly some of major isoglosses in Irish following a similiar geopgraphic boundary.









The last one is why native speakers prononuce Cnoc as "Croc" and Mna as "Mra" in Connacht/Ulster and why Luimneach was anglisced as Limerick and not Limenick.

Of course the DNA is pointing towards 70% of Irishmen belonging to a lineage that arose on the continent during the Bronze Age.

One thing I always found interesting in context of Irish language is that the distrubition of Ogham (ergo "Archaic Irish" -- the oldest registrar of the language) is highest in the South.



Goidelic (in the form of "Archaic Irish") is by default is more archaic (closer to "Proto-Celtic") then either Brythonic or Gaulish. Mainly as it perserved Indo-European Kw (Q), though in Old-Irish this was later merged to K. (Ogham Irish uses Q in comparison). The inovation in Gaulish/Brythonic was the sound-shift of this sound to a P sound.

-- worth noting that Indo-European P was lost in "Proto-Celtic", also the sound shift (Q->P -- simplistic description) also happens in other Indo-European families such as Greek. Mycenaean Greek (Bronze Age) could be termed Q-Greek for example.

The fact that Irish retained the sound, points to (a) early expansion -- before sound-shift to P happened (b) isolation/peripheral -- possibly tied to "dark ages" from 800BC - 200BC, result linguistic innovations didn't arrive.

cfuserkildare

Hi dubhthach,

I have to ask, how can any of this be verified?

Since there have been many variations in the language, even in the last 100 years, so I don't understand how what you are stating can be 100% fact.

I mean no offence by this, I am just trying to dig as deep as possible for the facts.

Also robp, Scottish Hill-forts pre-date Irish hillforts. Listed as being from the early Bronze Age.

robp

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Hi dubhthach,


Also robp, Scottish Hill-forts pre-date Irish hillforts. Listed as being from the early Bronze Age.

Do you have a source for this? I don't think this is the conventional thought.

cfuserkildare

Quote from Wikipedia,

"Bronze working developed in Scotland from about 2000 BCE. As elsewhere in Europe, it was in this period that hillforts were first introduced to Scotland. They varied in size and form. Some had timber palisades and others ditches and ramparts.[5] These included the occupation of Eildon hill near Melrose in the Scottish Borders, from around 1000 BCE, which accommodated several hundred houses on a fortified hilltop.[6] Traprain Law in East Lothian, had a 20-acre enclosure, sectioned in two places west of the summit, made up of a coursed, stone wall with a rubble core.[7] The function of these forts have been debated, with some stressing their military role and others their importance as symbolic centres of local society.[5]"
Stating a date for 1 sites occupation, said site being quite late in general scheme of Hill-Forts.

dubhthach

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Hi dubhthach,

I have to ask, how can any of this be verified?

Since there have been many variations in the language, even in the last 100 years, so I don't understand how what you are stating can be 100% fact.

I mean no offence by this, I am just trying to dig as deep as possible for the facts.

How can any of what be verified? That there are isoglosses in Irish? All you have to do is turn on TG4 or RnaG and you can hear them. Leaving aside that there is close on 200 years+ study into Irish and other insular Celtic languages.

For example we have recordings of native speakers from the likes of Leinster and East Ulster from the early 20th century. Louth-Irish for example is part of what could be termed "East-Ulster Irish", given that Louth was regarded as part of Ulster until the 17th century this make sense after all.

cfuserkildare

dubhthach,

The point I was making is that how can you be so sure the words were pronounced in the same manner 200,500, 1000 or 3000 years ago.

Just because a recording exists from 95 years ago does not mean the same people spoke the same way further back.

As a perfect example, how did the Ulster Scots speak 1000 years ago?, considering that the language spoken there would not arrive until 500-600 years later?

Ipso

This thread in another forum may be interesting.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1291-The-problem-of-the-whole-Urnfield-Hallstatt-La-Tene-Celtic-image

slowburner

The Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages project commenced in April 2013. Interesting looking collaboration. Unfortunately, the associated website appears to have been hacked.

Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages explores the development of language in Atlantic Europe (Britain, Ireland, northwest France, western Iberia) from 2900BC to the arrival of Latin (AD 400). It aims to test the hypothesis that Celtic probably evolved from Indo-European in Atlantic Europe during the Bronze Age. The prestigious research team is being led by Professor John Koch at the University of Wales. The project will make extensive use of GIS in compiling scientific evidence and a huge body of historical, linguistic and archaeological data, together with object metadata from the National Museum of Wales. Co-Investigator Paul Vetch, at King’s College London’s Department of Digital Humanities, will lead a team (including the Department’s web mapping specialist, Neil Jakeman) on research and development work around the curation and visualisation of the GIS, and direct exposure of the evidential data following Open Data principles.

from here,
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/ddh/research/projects/current/atlantic.aspx

...and a little more here,
http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/project/CE10AF6F-5655-4EC2-9A39-14D0A73C0816

slowburner

This link is to a brief modern rendition of the earliest complete song (1st century).
http://io9.com/listen-to-performances-of-the-worlds-oldest-complete-s-1457475368

tac foley

Slightly OT, but I'm sure that there are folks here who can answer this simple double-question.

Re - the Celtic languages....

Why is the Irish language found only in Ireland and the Brythonic language only in Britain [and eventually lesser Britain]. IOW, why does the basic Celtic language, if that it what is is, divide so neatly and geographically in the P and Q forms that we are told about?

After all, to get to Ireland from the European mainland, you find the British mainland in the way first. Are we to believe that the Q speakers ignored the big island and left it to the P speakers?

tac, simple soul.

cfuserkildare

From what I have been able to conclude,

Until not too long ago the Irish and Scots languages were much closer than they are now.
Most of what we think of as Irish is a re-invention instigated by Douglas Hyde.
A classic example of this is seen in the street signs around older parts of Dublin, If you read the old cast iron signs, then compare them to the new signs, the differences are immense.

Also, only certain parts of Scotland spoke the Gahlic, Central an Eastern Scotland spoke a completely different language, which would eventually develope in the Dorric Language.

dubhthach

cfuserkildare wrote: »

From what I have been able to conclude,

Until not too long ago the Irish and Scots languages were much closer than they are now.
Most of what we think of as Irish is a re-invention instigated by Douglas Hyde.
A classic example of this is seen in the street signs around older parts of Dublin, If you read the old cast iron signs, then compare them to the new signs, the differences are immense.

Also, only certain parts of Scotland spoke the Gahlic, Central an Eastern Scotland spoke a completely different language, which would eventually develope in the Dorric Language.

Most of Scotland was speaking Middle-Irish during the very early medieval period. This is evident in placenames as well as areas where Scots Gaidhlig survived into 19th century.

The linguistic divide at 1400 was like the following (Loch 1932)



At an earlier period around 1200 it would have look like this:


Scots or "Doric" as you call it was confined to the "Men of Lothian" which up until the late 11th century was part of the Kingdom of England until 973 when it became part of Kingdom of Alba (aka. Scotland).

Irish and Scots Gaidhlig form a dialectical chain. They've been developing separately for several hundred years though up until the 17th century they shared a common literary standard (which was "outdated" for both at that time).

A good analogy is to compare the seperation of the scandinavian (North Germanic) languages which all descended from a common lanuage (old norse) and which shared a political union in the form of Kalmar Union.

Douglas Hyde has nothing to do with it.

dubhthach

tac foley wrote: »

Slightly OT, but I'm sure that there are folks here who can answer this simple double-question.

Re - the Celtic languages....

Why is the Irish language found only in Ireland and the Brythonic language only in Britain [and eventually lesser Britain]. IOW, why does the basic Celtic language, if that it what is is, divide so neatly and geographically in the P and Q forms that we are told about?

After all, to get to Ireland from the European mainland, you find the British mainland in the way first. Are we to believe that the Q speakers ignored the big island and left it to the P speakers?

tac, simple soul.

The "Q" that everyone talks about is the "ancestral form" eg. it's the sound that was present in Proto-Celtic and Proto-Indo-European.

It's found also in Mycenaean Greek (think of Agamemnon and the like). Interesting parallel is that in Classical Greek it had shifted to "P", so you can say there exists "Q-Greek" and "P-Greek"

In case of Ireland the fact that Goidelic (branch of Celtic family containing modern Irish, Scots Gaidhlig and Manx Gaelg) maintained the sound is probably reflective of an early spread of "Proto-Celtic". It's more of a case that they didn't pick up on the trendy new "fashion" emanating from the continent -- "one must prononunce your q's as p's" etc.

Goidelic is found on both the islands of Ireland and Britain, specifically in the form of Scots Gaidhlig which shares common ancestor with Modern Irish in early medieval period (Old Irish -> Middle Irish etc.)

A comparable situation on the continent today is how Dutch didn't take part in the "High German" sound-shift. The only sound to shift in Dutch (and Low German as well) was th -> d (that vs. Dat).

In comparison in German d -> t (day, dag vs. Tag), k -> ch (make,maken vs. machen), *t -> ss (eat, eten -> essen). Good example of a word in german with two sound shifts is: Dass (th -> d, *t -> ss) the cognate in english been that.

cfuserkildare

dubhthach wrote: »

Most of Scotland was speaking Middle-Irish during the very early medieval period. This is evident in placenames as well as areas where Scots Gaidhlig survived into 19th century.

The linguistic divide at 1400 was like the following (Loch 1932)



At an earlier period around 1200 it would have look like this:


Scots or "Doric" as you call it was confined to the "Men of Lothian" which up until the late 11th century was part of the Kingdom of England until 973 when it became part of Kingdom of Alba (aka. Scotland).

Irish and Scots Gaidhlig form a dialectical chain. They've been developing separately for several hundred years though up until the 17th century they shared a common literary standard (which was "outdated" for both at that time).

A good analogy is to compare the seperation of the scandinavian (North Germanic) languages which all descended from a common lanuage (old norse) and which shared a political union in the form of Kalmar Union.

Douglas Hyde has nothing to do with it.

Hate to say this mate, But your dates are considerably off.

House of Alpin (843–878; 889–1040)
This was the first King of Scotlands reign (Kenneth McAlpin)

Also there doesn't seem to be any mention of the Picts.

dubhthach

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Hate to say this mate, But your dates are considerably off.

House of Alpin (843–878; 889–1040)
This was the first King of Scotlands reign (Kenneth McAlpin)

Also there doesn't seem to be any mention of the Picts.

What has the integration of Lothian into Kingdom of Scotland got to do with Cináed mac Ailpín who died 100 years before the event? Lothian became part of already existing Kingdom of Alba in 973 when it was granted to them by King Edgar (the Peaceful) of England.

The Picts ceased to exist as an independent group with the rise of Cináed mac Ailpín. Alba is the merger of the Dál Riata and Fortriu (Pictland).

Pictish like Cumbrian was probably extinct by the early 12th century. In case of Cumbrian the "Kingdom of Strathclyde" (Alt Clut) was conquered by the Scots (Alba) during the early 11th century under their King Máel Coluim mac Cináeda.