The Ancient Irish: Celts, Gaels; or just Irish

fontanalis · 04-08-2010 2:02pm #1

MarchDub wrote: »

Irish archeologists have been excavating many of the ancient sites over the past 30 or 40 years - and also using geophysical surveying equipment. Scholarship on ancient Ireland does not rely on mythology. That itself is a myth. The Celtic 'invasion' myth, for example, has long been discredited by the archeological evidence.

Professor of Archeology Barry Raftery has published on the Drumanagh peninsula, north Dublin - across from Lambay Island. This is where many Roman artifacts were found. The evidence suggests to him that there was trading with the Roman world but not an invasion, or conquest. Aerial photography revealed the outlines of circular Irish style homes - no Roman style found.

Here are some of Raftery's comments/review of the book, Roman Ireland by Vittorio Di Martino that contained much of the 'fantasy' [Raftery's words] of the Romans and Ireland.

Quote:
His basic premise is quite untrue. Today no reputable scholar concerned with a study of the first millennium AD in Ireland questions the extensive romanisation which obviously took place in so many areas of material, intellectual, artistic and religious development. Roman influences were durable, over time influencing, and adapting to, new trends. Nor has the identification of some Roman burials in Ireland ever been in question and nobody doubts that individuals, or small groups, from the Roman world may have set foot on Irish soil.
Di Martino's fascination and enthusiasm for his subject is evident and in this he is to be commended. In the basic material presented, however, there is little that is new and, more seriously, his reasoning, and the manner in which he presents the evidence, are deeply flawed. In addition, the book is littered with inaccuracies, so many in fact that only a handful can be noted in this review.
He deals in his first chapter with the alleged, oft-discussed "invasion" of Ireland by Agricola around 82AD. He adds nothing new to the argument and his inclusion of two well-known burial sites, on Lambay and at "Loughey" in Co Down, is unfortunate for neither is Roman and the latter is almost certainly that of a woman. Inevitably he rehashes, with approval, the Drumanagh controversy and concludes by invoking "burials of soldiers wearing their Roman arms", and an "invasion fort". Here he borders on pure fantasy.

The Celt thing is based purely on the language being described as celtic in the 18th century and as a way to distinguish the Irish from the English during the push for independence, isn't it?
Have you read any of Barry Cunliffes work, he's suppsoed to have some good books on Iron Age ireland.
The term celt has been very mangled to mean anything really.

MarchDub · 04-08-2010 3:19pm

fontanalis wrote: »

The Celt thing is based purely on the language being described as celtic in the 18th century and as a way to distinguish the Irish from the English during the push for independence, isn't it?
Have you read any of Barry Cunliffes work, he's suppsoed to have some good books on Iron Age ireland.
The term celt has been very mangled to mean anything really.

Yes, I am aware of all that. But the notion of an invasion is older than that. There is a myth - based on The Book of Invasions - that 'Gaels' came to Ireland in a single invasion force, doing away or confronting other mythological peoples and claiming Ireland for themselves- Amergin's poem etc describes some of it and is typical of 'foundation' poetry found in many other mythological sources.

This term 'Gael' was later changed to 'Celtic" in translations after the linguistic distinctions of the 18th century - but this was only a change in terminology, not in the myth of invasion. So by the time we get to the late 19th century the "Celtic invasion' had become an accepted idea. But the archeology does not support this myth - or the myth of any invasion at that time in the Iron Age, no matter what we choose to call it.

fontanalis · 04-08-2010 3:48pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, I am aware of all that. But the notion of an invasion is older than that. There is a myth - based on The Book of Invasions - that 'Gaels' came to Ireland in a single invasion force, doing away or confronting other mythological peoples and claiming Ireland for themselves- Amergin's poem etc describes some of it and is typical of 'foundation' poetry found in many other mythological sources.

This term 'Gael' was later changed to 'Celtic" in translations after the linguistic distinctions of the 18th century - but this was only a change in terminology, not in the myth of invasion. So by the time we get to the late 19th century the "Celtic invasion' had become an accepted idea. But the archeology does not support this myth - or the myth of any invasion at that time in the Iron Age, no matter what we choose to call it.

Sorry to be dragging off topic but I find this area fascinating. I have limited knowledge of the book of invasions (6 or 7 waves of invasions, the last being the Milesians who replaced the Tuatha de Danann, I think). Like you said there was no mass invasion that wiped out the existing population that then went on to populate the "blank slate".
But the last invaders were said to have come form Northern Spain, doesn't this tie in with movements/trading during the iron age and with the advent of agriculture; and some of the genetics and according to some people the language seems to give a link to this area.
Couldn't the book of inavasions be talking about a small "miltary elite" who arrived with the trading (possibly bringing the langauge) and managed to exert influence, and used these stories to boast of military prowess and also tried to tie themselves or their ancestors to biblical stories to give themselves "legitimacy". Also some of these stories tell of previous peoples as almost sub human, so it may have been a way to show they were better than the previous occupants.
Are there any book on this area you recommend?
Anyway back to the Romans!

Johnmb · 04-08-2010 5:06pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Sorry to be dragging off topic but I find this area fascinating. I have limited knowledge of the book of invasions (6 or 7 waves of invasions, the last being the Milesians who replaced the Tuatha de Danann, I think). Like you said there was no mass invasion that wiped out the existing population that then went on to populate the "blank slate".
But the last invaders were said to have come form Northern Spain, doesn't this tie in with movements/trading during the iron age and with the advent of agriculture; and some of the genetics and according to some people the language seems to give a link to this area.

The last lot of invasions should be taken with a large grain of salt. Not whether or not they happened (they didn't) but as to whether or not they are genuine Irish myth. The christians made sure to tie us in with the tribes of Israel, via Spain et all. How much of the invasion stories were pre-christian and how much was entirely their invention is not that clear.

Couldn't the book of inavasions be talking about a small "miltary elite" who arrived with the trading (possibly bringing the langauge) and managed to exert influence, and used these stories to boast of military prowess and also tried to tie themselves or their ancestors to biblical stories to give themselves "legitimacy". Also some of these stories tell of previous peoples as almost sub human, so it may have been a way to show they were better than the previous occupants.

Invading military elites, while they don't have much influence on the genetics, impact the archaeology (new burial customs, tools, weapons, houses, etc.). No such impact is evident in Ireland relating to that time period.

Are there any book on this area you recommend?
Anyway back to the Romans!

Similar situations between the two (evidence wise), the main differences being the assumptions were different (although that is being corrected) and the latter occurred in the historical period.

fontanalis · 04-08-2010 10:35pm

Further to a couple questions I asked on the Roman thread and not wanting to bring that off topic and probably pure pedantry on my part; what would be the correct terminology for describing the people who inhabited pre-christian Ireland?
The term celt gets thrown around from an etnic/race point of view and from a culture point of view (think it's linked to La Tene and Haldstatt iron work) and seems to have been coined in the victorian era when the related languages of Britain and Ireland were broken into p-celtic and q-celtic and the assumption was that invaders from the region where the above mentioned iron work originated came to Ireland and set up shop so to speak.
Then the term gael I think was used back in the day to describe people speaking gaelic.
The Romans called the Irish Scotti (think there was also some old Goddess from ancient myhtology called Scotta).
Of course there's the book of invasions with a wide cast of characters; the Nemedians, Fir Bolg (any link with the Belgae?), Tuatha de Danann and the Milesians.
My interest in this was first sparked by a show on Channel 4 about 4 or 5 years which said amongst other things that the Book of Kells had some Pictish influence and more recently by Stephen Oppenheimers book Origins of the British (there was a group who called themselves Celts in Spain but they invaded Northen Italy) in which Oppenhemier gives the first inhabitants of Ireland an Iberian ancestry.
So what are peoples views on this?
Am I being pedantic or not even scratching the surface?

Denerick · 05-08-2010 4:21pm

Its a tricky one. Ultimately trying to figure out the racialist composition of the inhabitants of pre-Christian Ireland is fraught with danger and pseudo-history. Generally I'd say we were considered Celtic, but I also think that much of our Celtic 'heritage' is an invented myth. All that revolutionary hogwash about the earnest Gael. It was all invention and fantasy, harking back to an ancient age that never was.

fontanalis · 05-08-2010 4:32pm

I suppose I'm asking an unanswerable question; who did the people at that time think they were? Like you say much of what is handed down is pseudo-history written after the fact.

InTheTrees · 05-08-2010 6:21pm

fontanalis wrote: »

I suppose I'm asking an unanswerable question;

There's a fascinating project being undertaken by the National Geographic Society to trace the migration of humans out of africa by tracing DNA.

They send you a kit, you take a swab from your mouth and send it to them and you will get a route map of your DNA from that first group of homo sapiens in africa to the present.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

MarchDub · 05-08-2010 10:33pm

Maybe some clarification about terminology would help here. We know from many sources - Brehon law system, Gaelic language, Iron Age Irish made artifacts from gold jewellery and stone carvings - that what became known as the 'Celtic culture' arrived in Ireland sometime in the Iron Age.

The confusion is that this was referred to in later texts as an actual invasion of people, which it was not. But what is known as the Celtic 'culture' - with connections to a continental original - did become part of the Irish experience and was the foundation of Irish law, language and art from the Iron Age on.

The conundrum for pre-historians and archeologists is figuring out how this culture came.

Fuinseog · 05-08-2010 11:04pm

the sons of Mil

fontanalis · 06-08-2010 12:45am

InTheTrees wrote: »

There's a fascinating project being undertaken by the National Geographic Society to trace the migration of humans out of africa by tracing DNA.

They send you a kit, you take a swab from your mouth and send it to them and you will get a route map of your DNA from that first group of homo sapiens in africa to the present.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

I read Spencer Wells (he's one of the main men behind the project) book The Journey of Man which gives an overview of the haplogroups and some of the main movements of people. Interesting read. Stephen Oppenheimers Origins of the British is also very good and delves into language also which is very interesting.
Barry Cunliffe's "Facing the Atlantic" is supposed to be very good and deals with the movement of people and trading along the Atlantic seaboard.
Thanks for the replies all.

pablomakaveli · 06-08-2010 10:02am

I'd say the ancient Irish would have been divided up into tribes and identified themselves by their tribe. It would have been similar for a lot of the so called Celts in europe at the time.

losthorizon · 06-08-2010 10:07am

Dont we have a celtic culture but really we arent a celtic people?

Its so long ago since i did archaeology that i cant remember

Denerick · 06-08-2010 10:08am

losthorizon wrote: »

Dont we have a celtic culture but really we arent a celtic people?

There isn't really an ethnic group on the planet that can really claim ethnic homogenity. Most of the human species have interacted with someone else at some stage and raped/married each other (And that was all too often the stark dichotomy!)

Raedwald · 06-08-2010 12:20pm

I would be of the feeling that to try and pigeon hole the ancient Irish would be wrong.

I was of the impression that they were an unorganized body of people, who had very little contact with those who lived elsewhere on the island.

fontanalis · 06-08-2010 2:13pm

losthorizon wrote: »

Dont we have a celtic culture but really we arent a celtic people?

Its so long ago since i did archaeology that i cant remember

The term celtic was given to the languages of the British isles and Northern France around the 18th century (Gaelic, Scots Gaelic and Max were labelled q celtic; Welsh, Breton, Cornish and Cumbrian were labelled p celtic Pictish more than liekly falls under p celtic) and given similarites between iron work and jewelery to that of the haldstatt and la tene cultures of central Europe it was assumed there was an invasion, of which has been said above there more than likely wasn't.
I think the term Celt was also used as a nationalist label just to show countries like Scotland, Wales and Ireland weren't English.
As someone said Ireland may have been made up of various groups; take The Tain for example (a myth I know) but you had two kingdoms kicking the sh1t of each other over a cow. Couldn't that be some relic of the feuds between various groups on the island?

nnr · 06-08-2010 3:39pm

The term 'Celts' that is associated with the Halstatt and La Tene periods in European archaeology does not apply to the native or original Irish. There is little or no archaeological evidence of the La Tene or Halstatt 'culture' having invaded Ireland, and therefore no evidence for the invasion and migration theories that describe how Ireland was invaded by the Celts during the Iron Age period.
It's one of the first things you learn when studying archaeology in university!

sickpuppy32 · 08-08-2010 2:42am

fontanalis wrote: »

Just checked the book I read it in, the Roman General Agricola (think he was in charge of Britain) was the one who almost invaded. The Irish King isn't named, just mentioned as a minor king.

Wasn;t the kingdom of meath carved out by a returning irish prince around the same time?

alhimself · 27-08-2010 4:28am

as mention im no expert, but having read up a little bit, my take on it was the gaels originating in east europe,northern italy spread west, into spain and up in to france, from the iberian pensula into ireland and from france to england, not as an invasion but as a movement of people, trading, settling, integrating into the societies of the locals, as previous ones had such as bell beakers, as the cultures evolved from one into another, each an extension of the one previous, going back through the bronze age, neolithic etc back to prehistoric ireland at the end of the ice age when ireland became accessible again and people came in from the uk landmass lets call it, as countries werent defined. the gaels were present across ireland, scotland,england and europe as the most noticable culture of the time, up until the roman empire defeated the the gaels of the region,and as a conquering force they moved west, leaving a sharp shift in cultures as opposed to an evolution over time. upon reaching britain they moved north, but due to the obstactles of bringing large forces across the channel vs over the land of continential europe, were unable to make as much as a foot hold in britain. in particular as they headed north, leaving supply lines to think of and never really being able to fully impose their rule on the celts of scotland, or landing sizeable enough forces to spread past the pockets on the east coast of ireland. the gaels and "celtic" culture in ireland managed to maintain itself resonably independent of the roman culture which took hold of england, upto the anglo saxon spread in europe and the invasion in of england. facing the same issues as the romans, never managed to fully impose its culture on scotland. while ireland remained isolated from it all and the celtic culture preserved where it had been replaced across europe and england. up until the norman invasion of all england and later ireland this celtic culture reamined in place in ireland and scotland spanning the centuries of the roman and anglo saxon presence in england. this norman presence then evolving into the country the england we know today, and the rest is history as far the uk of ireland, england scotland and wales goes, we all know the rest of that story,

The main point of it being, england as a whole can easily be said to be of celtic origins and a celtic people but the fact that ireland and scotland remained more predominantly celtic during the later invasion's the association is stronger and fuels a stronger celtic identity then that of england.this celtic identity becoming very much prominent during the celtic revival, and obviously a symbol of irish nationalism. im sure if it wasnt for the romans, anglo saxons and normans, conquering the gaels and each other in england english people could associate themselves more with the culture of the gaels as opposed to that of the conquering forces, at the end of the day we were all "celtic" before hand, and something else before that, and whatever culture was predominant at the time in the region.
hell we're all african anyways. yes my post is v. generalised, without dates, and basically based on tracking the history of europe and our isles from wikipedia, but i think thats the brass tax of it.

Mervyn Crawford · 09-01-2011 11:40am

The prehistory (unwritten) of mankind and it's culture is being unravelled by scientific investigation. This enriches our understanding.

(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/ston-f24.shtml)

In contemporary Ireland the scientific record is often spun to impose a Nationalist agenda.

Archaeology, anthropology, evolotionary biology, .... are all making the the world and our place in it more interesting.

GhostInTheRuins · 11-01-2011 12:18am

Excuse my ignorance here, but when people say that the archeological evidence proves that there was no invasion, what exactly does that mean? What is the evidence that proves there was no invasion? Or is it a case that it's the lack of certain evidence that proves it?

Johnmb · 11-01-2011 11:51am

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance here, but when people say that the archeological evidence proves that there was no invasion, what exactly does that mean? What is the evidence that proves there was no invasion? Or is it a case that it's the lack of certain evidence that proves it?

The evidence shows continuation of culture, not a change (as you would get in an invasion situation). Even the famous "Celtic" designs found on Irish products aren't actually the same as the designs from the Celtic regions of Europe. They are done with a clear Irish design change and, depending on who you read, they either had a unique feature added, or a flaw
Burials etc also remain the same as they had been, there are no typical Celtic burials in Ireland (as far as the period in question is concerned). The same can be said for what is now England. Southeast, closest to Europe, has close links and may have had some Celtic population there, but the further northwest you go, things change. They clearly had contact, but not the people. The classic example is of a Celtic style chariot burial in northwest England that was found, it was disassembled. Those that have been found in Europe have been pretty much ready to go, but the English one was a DIY job for the afterlife. They had enough contact to know about the idea of bringing a chariot to the afterlife, but added their own spin to it with the DIY aspect. No such burials have been found in Ireland as far as I'm aware, DIY or ready to go.

dubhthach · 24-01-2011 9:13pm

There is a problem though with insisting that Celtic speakers only applies to Hallstat and La Tene material cultures. On a related example we know greek was spoken in Greece about 1,000 BC by the Mycenaeans who have a different material culture from that of later "classic" greeks who are associated with the period after the "Doric invasions"

It is possible that Celtic languages were in West Europe before the rise of Hallstat material culture. As for "Celtic languages" the surviving corpus of Gaulish (language associated with La Tene) shows clear links with old-irish. Likewise there are Celtic stone inscriptions that are pre-Hallstat in Spain.

Feckin_Eejit · 26-01-2011 9:45pm

Raedwald wrote: »

I would be of the feeling that to try and pigeon hole the ancient Irish would be wrong.

I was of the impression that they were an unorganized body of people, who had very little contact with those who lived elsewhere on the island.

Who were these others then? Germans? English? Chinese?

Feckin_Eejit · 26-01-2011 9:55pm

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

The prehistory (unwritten) of mankind and it's culture is being unravelled by scientific investigation.
In contemporary Ireland the scientific record is often spun to impose a Nationalist agenda.

What do you mean?

Johnmb · 26-01-2011 10:31pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

Who were these others then? Germans? English? Chinese?

The Laigin, Connachta, Ulaid etc, or Ui Dunlainge, Ui Neill etc, would be what the people considered themselves. They would have no more considered themselves Irish than the people on mainland Europe would have considered themselves European. Ireland was where they lived, not who they were.

Feckin_Eejit · 28-01-2011 12:47am

Johnmb, the original poster I was querying said as follows:

I would be of the feeling that to try and pigeon hole the ancient Irish would be wrong. I was of the impression that they were an unorganized body of people, who had very little contact with those who lived elsewhere on the island.

I took this to mean that the Irish were an unorganized body of people who had little contact with others on the island of Ireland. You say these 'others' were Laigin, Connachta, Ulaid etc, or Uí Dúnlainge, Uí Néill etc.

So who were the Irish who ignored the'others'? The Eóganchta? Dáiríne? Lochlannaigh? Gall?

Johnmb · 28-01-2011 1:27pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

I took this to mean that the Irish were an unorganized body of people who had little contact with others on the island of Ireland. You say these 'others' were Laigin, Connachta, Ulaid etc, or Uí Dúnlainge, Uí Néill etc.

So who were the Irish who ignored the'others'? The Eóganchta? Dáiríne? Lochlannaigh? Gall?

??? I would have thought it was pretty clear from what has already been written that there were no people who considered themselves "Irish" at the time. That is a much more modern convention.

Feckin_Eejit · 28-01-2011 4:07pm

Johnmb, you say

Johnmb wrote: »

??? I would have thought it was pretty clear from what has already been written that there were no people who considered themselves "Irish" at the time.

That is my point – it was not clear what Raedwald meant. I’ll quote him again:

I would be of the feeling that to try and pigeon hole the ancient Irish would be wrong. I was of the impression that they were an unorganized body of people, who had very little contact with those who lived elsewhere on the island. (Raedwald : Message 15)

He refers to ‘the ancient Irish’, then says ‘they were an unorganized body of people’, and then, confusingly, states that they had little contact with those who lived elsewhere on the island. So, we have this ancient disorganized group called ‘the Irish’ living in Ireland who have almost no communication with those living elsewhere on the island! I only asked who these others were. Of course, he may have meant that the ancient Irish were so disorganized that they had little contact with each other! That, however, is so ridiculous that I didn’t entertain it but maybe it was what he actually meant.

Johnmb · 28-01-2011 6:05pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

He refers to ‘the ancient Irish’, then says ‘they were an unorganized body of people’, and then, confusingly, states that they had little contact with those who lived elsewhere on the island. So, we have this ancient disorganized group called ‘the Irish’ living in Ireland who have almost no communication with those living elsewhere on the island! I only asked who these others were. Of course, he may have meant that the ancient Irish were so disorganized that they had little contact with each other! That, however, is so ridiculous that I didn’t entertain it but maybe it was what he actually meant.

Maybe he should has phrased it slightly differently, as I've done below. Nothing ridiculous about it.

I was of the impression that they were an unorganized body of people, who had very little contact with those who lived elsewhere on the island each other

Feckin_Eejit · 28-01-2011 8:28pm

Johnmb wrote: »

Maybe he should has phrased it slightly differently, as I've done below. Nothing ridiculous about it.

You don't say? Can you substantiate that claim that the ancient Irish had very little contact with each other?

Johnmb · 28-01-2011 9:57pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

You don't say? Can you substantiate that claim that the ancient Irish had very little contact with each other?

??? Are you serious? Have you any idea as to what the landscape was like at the time? Have you done any research into this besides reading here at all? Even when Brehon laws applied to the whole island, it shows that the people, in general, rarely left their own Tuatha.

dubhthach · 28-01-2011 10:11pm

Johnmb wrote: »

??? Are you serious? Have you any idea as to what the landscape was like at the time? Have you done any research into this besides reading here at all? Even when Brehon laws applied to the whole island, it shows that the people, in general, rarely left their own Tuatha.

Awh no change then most people don't tend to leave their current county

Regarding territorial boundaries the current church dioceses are based of those set aside by Synod of Kells in 1152. These reflected the political situation on the ground at the time regarding the different kings. I've read before that the current baronies in Ireland are largely based on the pre-existing Túatha boundaries.

Feckin_Eejit · 29-01-2011 2:01pm

John, you say

???? Are you serious? Have you any idea as to what the landscape was like at the time? Have you done any research into this besides reading here at all?

Yes, yes, and yes. You claim to know what Raedwald meant by his poorly phrased remarks on this thread. I just wanted his clarification. In any case, whatever he meant, your interpretation of it and your position on this issue is stated by you as follows:

I was of the impression that [the Irish] were an unorganized body of people, who had very little contact with those who lived elsewhere on the island each other

You have still failed to substantiate this claim. There is a clear imputation here that Ireland was different to other societies in this regard. Aside from the fact that in all societies up to fairly recent times most people lived and died within 5 or 10 miles of their birthplace this claim is not unique to Ireland.

Johnmb · 29-01-2011 5:15pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

You have still failed to substantiate this claim. There is a clear imputation here that Ireland was different to other societies in this regard. Aside from the fact that in all societies up to fairly recent times most people lived and died within 5 or 10 miles of their birthplace this claim is not unique to Ireland.

What are you talking about now? How was Ireland different to other societies? It is well known that other societies were not single nations even when ruled by a single ruler, the idea of being a unified nation is a modern construct. Read the myths and you'll see that the people of the time did not consider themselves to all be the same race, nor did they consider themselves to be Irish. Many claim ancestry from different groups. While we now know those ancestries to be wrong, and that they were the same people descended from the same original group, the fact that their own myths claimed otherwise shows what their own opinions of the others on the island were.

dubhthach · 29-01-2011 5:38pm

You are generally looking at the Medeival period for mentions of a "common nation" for example in the High middle ages you have the letter of Robert de Bruce (King of scotland) to the chiefs of Ireland. Tied in no doubt with the arrival of Edward to claim the Kingship of Ireland.

Whereas we and you and our people and your people, free since ancient times, share the same national ancestry and are urged to come together more eagerly and joyfully in friendship by a common language and by common custom, we have sent you our beloved kinsman, the bearers of this letter, to negotiate with you in our name about permanently strengthening and maintaining inviolate the special friendship between us and you, so that with God's will our nation (nostra nacio) may be able to recover her ancient liberty.

Feckin_Eejit · 29-01-2011 7:19pm

Johnmb wrote: »

What are you talking about now?

John,

You seem to be arguing with me at cross purposes. In Message #30 you clearly understood what I was on about. I made no comment whatsoever regarding any so-called claim to nationhood by the ancient Irish. I am simply asking that supply evidence in support of the following statement that you made quite trenchantly in Message #30:

I was of the impression that [the Irish] were an unorganized body of people, who had very little contact with those who lived elsewhere on the island each other

However, as a newcomer I am now feeling quite reluctant to continue with this exchange in view of the manner of your responses. Maybe I should change my username.

GhostInTheRuins · 30-01-2011 1:13am

Talk about pedantic...jaysus.

Johnmb · 30-01-2011 2:13pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

John,

You seem to be arguing with me at cross purposes. In Message #30 you clearly understood what I was on about. I made no comment whatsoever regarding any so-called claim to nationhood by the ancient Irish. I am simply asking that supply evidence in support of the following statement that you made quite trenchantly in Message #30:

However, as a newcomer I am now feeling quite reluctant to continue with this exchange in view of the manner of your responses. Maybe I should change my username.

But you would appear to be contradicting yourself. You clearly said:

Aside from the fact that in all societies up to fairly recent times most people lived and died within 5 or 10 miles of their birthplace this claim is not unique to Ireland.

and then, in the same post you are querying why we would be saying that the people living on this island in ancient times had very little contact with each other. If you spend your life within 5-10 miles of the same place, you are not going to have much contact with people who live beyond that. Ireland may be a small country, but it is still big enough that 5-10 miles in distance is not that much relatively speaking, especially in a society that does not have towns and cities.

Feckin_Eejit · 30-01-2011 7:29pm

John,

No. I am not contradicting myself. The fact that I make seemingly contradictory statements is due to objectively looking at Raedwald’s and your own statement in the round from all perspectives and having to speculate about its meaning and relevance. I sought clarification but Raedwald has not responded. You are in a postion to explain your meaning but still have not provided any evidence in support of your view:

… that the ancient Irish were an unorganized people who had little contact with each other.

The ancient Irish were highly organized and, like other societies, there was contact and communication at all levels between themselves and with other societies elsewhere. Goods were traded, ideas were exchanged, language evolved, new words and phrases interchanged, customs evolved, religious practice and belief changed, music was disseminated, technology was imported and spread throughout the island. St. Patrick, an escaped slave, by his own testimony tells us he travelled the length of Ireland and took ship to the Continent. Societies that are not interactively engaged stagnate. Ireland, ancient or otherwise, was never stagnant. The historical and archaeological record provides clear irrefutable evidence that these process were going on continuously.

This intercourse was effected by some people moving freely about from tuatha to tuatha, place to place, along a network of known ‘roads’ or routeways, and between Ireland and elsewhere. No society, no region, no tuatha can function in isolation. The very fact that it was found necessary to invent genealogies reflecting changed dynastic, political and social realities is indicative that ancient Irish society was not stagnant.

And yet, despite this, it is also true to say – of Ireland, as well as elsewhere - that most people lived and died within a short distance of their place of birth. A society only needs a minority of its people to engage with others in order for the interactions described above to flourish.

[If, as a newcomer, I can make one off topic observation it is this: Ghostinthemachine says I am pedantic and Johnmb accuses me of not being serious and demands to know what I am talking about. Are you not required under the Forum Rules to argue only to the topic being debated and not make personal comments against posters? Or are the Forum Rules, like the Irish Financial Regulator, a joke but I have not been around long enough to know it?]

Johnmb · 30-01-2011 10:08pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

No. I am not contradicting myself. The fact that I make seemingly contradictory statements is due to objectively looking at Raedwald’s and your own statement in the round from all perspectives and having to speculate about its meaning and relevance.

Well instead of wasting your time doing that, just read them in the context that they were made. Things will be a lot easier that way.

I sought clarification but Raedwald has not responded. You are in a postion to explain your meaning but still have not provided any evidence in support of your view: The ancient Irish were highly organized and,

The context has clearly been on an island wide level. They were not in any way organised on that level. To think they were simply means that you don't know much about the era. On an individual Thuath level, or course they were organised. On an island wide level there were about 150 different Thuatha, and they did not organise themselves on an island wide level at any time in recorded history prior to the modern "nation state" movement.

like other societies, there was contact and communication at all levels between themselves and with other societies elsewhere.

This is not just wrong, it is an incredibly naive argument. The elite of societies had contact, the ordinary, average person did not. The only way most people ever got to see foreign societies at the time was if they were part of an army.

Goods were traded, ideas were exchanged, language evolved, new words and phrases interchanged, customs evolved, religious practice and belief changed, music was disseminated, technology was imported and spread throughout the island.

Yes, by the elite, not by the average people living here. And at no time was the idea of them all being Irish disseminated or accepted. If the idea of nation states had existed at the time then there would have been about 150 such entities on this island, not one.

St. Patrick, an escaped slave, by his own testimony tells us he travelled the length of Ireland and took ship to the Continent.

Assuming he was a real person, he was hardly an example of an average person. And he was unlikely to have had much, if any, contact with average people. He would have been trying to convert the elite, they would then sort out the rest.

Societies that are not interactively engaged stagnate. Ireland, ancient or otherwise, was never stagnant. The historical and archaeological record provides clear irrefutable evidence that these process were going on continuously.

I think you are going way off topic here as to what is being discussed. You originally picked on a post that simply said that the people who lived on the island at the time did not consider themselves to be a unified Irish people. Why would that imply that they were stagnant as a culture or society?

This intercourse was effected by some people moving freely about from tuatha to tuatha, place to place, along a network of known ‘roads’ or routeways, and between Ireland and elsewhere. No society, no region, no tuatha can function in isolation.

And who said anything about the society being isolated? What was said was that most of the people wouldn't have had any interaction with anyone from elsewhere on the island, and that is true. The elite on the other hand would have being keeping well informed as to what was going on, and they would have used that knowledge of new technology etc to keep their advantage over the many people who were below them in society, within their own area of influence.

The very fact that it was found necessary to invent genealogies reflecting changed dynastic, political and social realities is indicative that ancient Irish society was not stagnant.

Again with the stagnant. Who said they were stagnant? Why would not considering yourself and everyone else on the island to be Irish cause you to be stagnant?

And yet, despite this, it is also true to say – of Ireland, as well as elsewhere - that most people lived and died within a short distance of their place of birth. A society only needs a minority of its people to engage with others in order for the interactions described above to flourish.

And a minority having contact, with the majority having no contact, can be averaged out to say that overall there was "very little contact", which is exactly what was said. You have just backed up what was said in an attempt to argue against it. Now do you see where the "you are contradicting yourself" comment comes from, and why I had (and still have) to ask what you are talking about?

If, as a newcomer, I can make one off topic observation it is this: Ghostinthemachine says I am pedantic and Johnmb accuses me of not being serious and demands to know what I am talking about. Are you not required under the Forum Rules to argue only to the topic being debated and not make personal comments against posters? Or are the Forum Rules, like the Irish Financial Regulator, a joke but I have not been around long enough to know it?

You are not making yourself clear to the point where I don't know whether or not to take you seriously, especially given your chosen screen name. Nobody has broken any rules by describing your posts as being pedantic (given the clear context, which you have chosen to ignore to make your arguments) or asking what you are talking about when you are not making yourself clear, and are seemingly making a point in favour of what was said as an argument against it!

Enkidu · 31-01-2011 2:34pm

Chris Wickham in his book "The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400-1000" says that the Irish had developed a sense of an island wide culture much earlier than such notions appeared in other areas of Europe. However everything else I read supports what Johnmb is saying, so I don't know what to think.

It's possible that Ireland would appear to have a unified culture due to the presence of the literary classes and their strictly controlled linguistic standard which covered the whole Gaelic world. I know the Bards considered themselves part of an extended culture. However this probably meant nothing for most commoners or nobles who lived in their own tuatha.

dubhthach · 31-01-2011 2:37pm

Enkidu wrote: »

Chris Wickham in his book "The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400-1000" says that the Irish had developed a sense of an island wide culture much earlier than such notions appeared in other areas of Europe. However everything else I read supports what Johnmb is saying, so I don't know what to think.

It's possible that Ireland would appear to have a unified culture due to the presence of the literary classes and their strictly controlled linguistic standard which covered the whole Gaelic world. I know the Bards considered themselves part of an extended culture. However this probably meant nothing for most commoners or nobles who lived in their own tuatha.

Indeed of course one could argue the same was probably the case across Feudal Europe. I've often thought that situation in Ireland was very similar to that which developed in the Holy Roman Empire post the 12th century. Power became decentralised and the position of the Emperor became more symbolic over time.

Johnmb · 31-01-2011 3:05pm

Enkidu wrote: »

Chris Wickham in his book "The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400-1000" says that the Irish had developed a sense of an island wide culture much earlier than such notions appeared in other areas of Europe. However everything else I read supports what Johnmb is saying, so I don't know what to think.

Culture tends to be regionalised over much larger areas than a political entity would be. Ireland, as an island, was quite unified as far as the culture is concerned, along with what is now Scotland and non-romanised areas in Wales and England. It would be difficult to distinguish between the cultural artefacts from any of those areas. The same can be said on mainland Europe for pre-Roman times. It would be very difficult to distinguish between the Celtic and Germanic peoples based on the artefacts alone, generally speaking. Of course, if you pick two extreme areas very far apart there will be differences, but the differences are achieved via many, many very small changes that are almost unnoticeable, but add up over increased distances. Even then, thanks to trade networks, there may be no noticeable difference between artefacts that come from very long distances away.

subedei · 31-01-2011 3:46pm

I think personally that it was perhaps quite like Ancient Greece where each city thought of themselves as different and often even thought the other Greek citys were barbarians, but they all knew that a person more different was a non greek, and they certainly did band together on occasions on common cultural, linguistic grounds against a common enemy. They thought of the Romans, Macedonians and Persians as far more barbaric than their sister citys. As it would have been in Ireland, yes there was no nationality in modern sense but they would have certainly viewed themseleves more similar to other peoples who had the same culture and language, even with slight changes to both the further u went. All one really needs for a nationality, in a general sense, is "the other", and Ireland certainly had plenty of contact with "the other" peoples to realise they were part of something greater than their own Tuatha.

To believe that the Irish were secluded is nonsense, one only has to go to the national museum to see that since the Bronze age Ireland has been importing things from abroad (ie amber from baltic etc) and trade was so established in the Iron age that they could import such luxurys as hair gel from France or Spain(clonycavan man) or a barbary Ape from the mediterranean or Spain (navan fort find). Corlea bog and other bogs in Ireland show that ireland had roads from the neolithic to the Bronze age to the iron age. The iron age road in Corlea shows advanced craftmanship, where they altered the design according to the environment they were building it on, and that it was a vast undertaking that must have taken vast amount of skilled people, who most have had quite alot of experience in making roads. it actually shows remarkable similarities to a road found in a bog in saxony, germany, showing that either trade or knowledge was being exchanged between the two areas. Of course these roads have only been found in bogs as unlike Roman ones they were made of wood not stone, so if they were built on normal ground they would have perished at this stage. But it is likely that such roads were in non bog areas too, as the Brehon laws state that each king was legally obliged to fix any damage done to their local roads, if the roads werent common then this would not have been featured.

Yes most of this would have only been experienced by an elite, but in order to deal in luxurys u first need to have strong trade links already in place, so most likely there would have been some experience of this on the different levels of the society. The roads themselves being such a common feature it is hard to believe that some did not travel along these routes, it is hardly likely that only a handful of people were only allowed to use them, if that was so it would not have been so important to maintain them.

grenache · 03-02-2011 11:34am

I am somewhat confused by this thread. Posters are acknowledging that the people in pre-Christian Ireland were Celts (or practised Celtic customs such as Brehon Law) but then people are saying our earliest settlers were not Celts, without actually saying what they were.

So my question is were they Celts or not? Nobody seems to be able to give a definitive answer on this question.

dubhthach · 03-02-2011 11:48am

grenache wrote: »

I am somewhat confused by this thread. Posters are acknowledging that the people in pre-Christian Ireland were Celts (or practised Celtic customs such as Brehon Law) but then people are saying our earliest settlers were not Celts, without actually saying what they were.

So my question is were they Celts or not? Nobody seems to be able to give a definitive answer on this question.

Grenache the Celts are an Indo-European speaking people. If you believe the linguists the common Indo-European language was spoken about 8,000 years ago in the Russian Steppe. There's been people living in Ireland for at least 10,000 years. What happen was you had success waves of invasion. You would have originally had "hunter-gathers" who were then followed by the first farmers. Due to higher productivity of farming these would have outbred and subsume the original hunter-gather population.

Regarding the "Celts" gentically it looks like our male line is mostly celtic. 90% of Irishmen belong to haplogroup R1b which is closely tied to western Indo-European speaking populations (R1a is tied to Slavic/Baltic/Indic/Iranic). The most common subgroup of these R1b men belong to a "sub-haplogroup" called L21. This is found in Ireland in the west to Austria in the east in significant numbers. (former celtic occupied areas)

Potentially what happened was you had a small male dominated "celtic migration" into Ireland. Over time due to military power they became the dominant social class. Been top of the heap they had better access to women and their sons had a higher chance of survival to adulthood due to better social standing. As a result you get what the geneticists call "Elite dominance theory" -- a small group who are an elite can overtime (2,500 years in our time) have more descendants then the now socially-inferior native males.

If that is the case in Ireland then we have a "celtic dominated" male lineage and a native female lineage. For example my female lineage (mitochondrial) is U4 which is one of the oldest in Europe been present for at least 25,000 years on the continent.

Johnmb · 03-02-2011 1:13pm

Okay, so much of this information is wrong that it's hard to know where to start!

dubhthach wrote: »

Grenache the Celts are an Indo-European speaking people. If you believe the linguists the common Indo-European language was spoken about 8,000 years ago in the Russian Steppe. There's been people living in Ireland for at least 10,000 years. What happen was you had success waves of invasion.

There is not only no evidence of any invasions up until the time of the Vikings, but all the evidence that there is shows that there were in fact no such invasions during the period in question.

You would have originally had "hunter-gathers" who were then followed by the first farmers.

The first farmers were the descendants of the hunter gatherers, who took to farming. There was more than one attempt, it didn't take originally, but later on they got their hands on some cows from abroad and from that point it seemed to work for them (not necessarily due to the cows), at least that is when farming (and the Neolithic) are dated to here.

Due to higher productivity of farming these would have outbred and subsume the original hunter-gather population.

Again, it was the same population. Some did farming, some did hunting and gathering. Initially, the H&G crowd had the most success, later on, the farmers had success, and the remaining hunter gatherers are just as likely to have become farmers as they are to have died out. In fact, they are probably more likely to have joined their farming relatives than to have died out, given there was no major lack of food.

Regarding the "Celts" gentically it looks like our male line is mostly celtic. 90% of Irishmen belong to haplogroup R1b which is closely tied to western Indo-European speaking populations (R1a is tied to Slavic/Baltic/Indic/Iranic). The most common subgroup of these R1b men belong to a "sub-haplogroup" called L21. This is found in Ireland in the west to Austria in the east in significant numbers. (former celtic occupied areas)

Actually, genetically (and archaeologically) most Irish are pre-celtic. To be Celtic is a linguistic term, you need to speak a Celtic language, it has nothing to do with your DNA. The earliest known people to have spoken a Celtic language do not share our DNA, nor do they share our archaeology. At a much later date there is clear evidence that the people of Ireland had contact with these people and adopted parts of their art and culture, but the people themselves did not invade, or even arrive here in many numbers.

Potentially what happened was you had a small male dominated "celtic migration" into Ireland. Over time due to military power they became the dominant social class. Been top of the heap they had better access to women and their sons had a higher chance of survival to adulthood due to better social standing. As a result you get what the geneticists call "Elite dominance theory" -- a small group who are an elite can overtime (2,500 years in our time) have more descendants then the now socially-inferior native males.

Not only is there no evidence for this, it has already been proven not to have happened due to the actual evidence that exists (both the archaeological and genetic evidence). If any people immigrated from Europe (and they most likely did, and well as many emigrating), they had no impact. The genetics are still the same, for the most part, as the initial Hunter Gatherers, and the culture didn't change, as would be expected if a foreign ruling class had taken over.

If that is the case in Ireland then we have a "celtic dominated" male lineage and a native female lineage. For example my female lineage (mitochondrial) is U4 which is one of the oldest in Europe been present for at least 25,000 years on the continent.

The evidence doesn't support any of these conclusions. I'm not sure how you have been able to draw any of them from the evidence that exists.

subedei · 03-02-2011 1:23pm

grenache wrote: »

I am somewhat confused by this thread. Posters are acknowledging that the people in pre-Christian Ireland were Celts (or practised Celtic customs such as Brehon Law) but then people are saying our earliest settlers were not Celts, without actually saying what they were.

So my question is were they Celts or not? Nobody seems to be able to give a definitive answer on this question.

To answere your question whether irish were celtic or not, one needs to look at different categories:

Language: There certainly is something called Celtic languages. Its a great myth that the celts didnt write, there is 500 (as of 2003, may well be more now, think there have been more discovered) pieces of Celtic writing in 4 different alphabets, Etruscan, Phoenician, Greek and Latin. These were mostly dedications to gods or names of people or territory. There is enough left to make a comparison between modern celtic languages and say that there is such a thing as Celtic languages, example u have the word in Gaulish "mat" for good, is "maith" in Irish, you have "catus" for battle, "caith" in Irish.

Art: La Tene art does seem to have made a sudden appearance in Ireland around 4th century BC, there isnt the same testing and gradual assimilation in artistic techniques, as seemed to have happened in britain for instance. But the previous eras of art did continue in gold and bronze, the same skills continued, showing there was the same people as before in the mediums they knew atleast. Ireland seems to have been quite closely tied to Britain and Gaul in the 4th century period of art but does have its own style, as time goes on the Irish la Tene starts to be more and more distinctive, especially in the period post the birth of christ with somerset style etc.

Culture: In the early Irish literature while the objects and weaponry were probably from the period it was written (so called dark ages), the culture depicted in the text is very similar to the Celtic culture described by classical sources, so much so that you can say that culturally atleast the texts do depict an Celtic Iron Age culture.

Religion: There is certainly some of the gods from the wider Celtic world in the Irish pantheon, tho in the early irish sources these have been demoted to supernatural beings rather than gods. So for example, we have Oghma (where the name for ogham script comes from) in Ireland and in Gaul they have Ogmios, the gauls had Lugus, we have Lugh (where lughnasa comes from), and the Gauls had Danu (the river danube is named after her) and in ireland the gods are called the children of Danann or children of Danu.

Archaeology: In around the 4th century BC there seems to have been a dramatic change in art to La tene art, tho as I said above they continued to make the bronze and gold objects in similar styles and techniques. So that might mean that the people just adopted these new styles and stayed the same genetically, or it could mean a new elite entered the country. As it is at the moment, archaeologically speaking there is no evidence of an invasion mass or minor. Also many of the Celtic countries share archaeologically very little except a similar artistic style with each other.

Genetics: Well this is still a very new field in history and there has been some dramatic differences in the results published, depending on author, so much variation means the field is not exactly accurate yet and often there is descrepency in the numbers of peoples blood taken in different areas in different tests. But as it stands there doesnt seem to be any real dent in the Irish DNA of other celtic peoples, according to Bryan sykes, and as the book of invasions says we seem to have come from northern Spain, tho from far earlier than they had thought, about 10,000 years ago, so far before iron age celts existed.

So all in all one could say that ireland certainly had artistic, cultural, religious and linguistic similarities with other Celtic people with its own twists and additions to each, genetically and archaeology we do not. So going on that information what the irish were was Celtic in culture, art, religion, and languages, while genetically and physically we were a different people.

As for the origin of the debate about is there such a thing as celts? Well it started around the late 90's, around the period when devolution was happening in scotland, wales and Northern Ireland and celtic nationalism was rising in these areas. It seems to have arisen as a way to counteract what was happening in these countries or atleast in reaction to it.

After saying that tho, Celt is probably a retrospective construct (not sure how many people thought of themselves as Celtic) just as Roman is (how many Romans actually came from Rome? very little), ancient Greek (spartans were actually later invaders from the north who took over the kingdom of Sparta that existed in the Homer texts, Athenians were the original greeks, the only ones), German (there is questions what race are each germanic area during the iron age) but all these while different genetically shared similar culture, religion, language and art with each other. So if one says Celt is a make believe word then the others are too, but there is enough relations to each other to call them celts now, tho not sure how many of them would have regarded each other as Celtic or part of the same grouping.

Johnmb · 03-02-2011 1:25pm

grenache wrote: »

I am somewhat confused by this thread. Posters are acknowledging that the people in pre-Christian Ireland were Celts (or practised Celtic customs such as Brehon Law) but then people are saying our earliest settlers were not Celts, without actually saying what they were.

So my question is were they Celts or not? Nobody seems to be able to give a definitive answer on this question.

Celtic is a linguistic term, we are Celtic in the sense that Irish is a Celtic language, not in the sense that we are descended from the people of central Europe, which is where the oldest known Celtic languages were spoken. Brehon Law is Irish law, not Celtic, there is no evidence of it being practiced anywhere else other than Ireland, although aspects of it are likely to have some foreign influence, we have no idea what aspects. Our earliest ancestors were pre-Celtic. We don't know what language(s) they spoke, but it was pre-Indo-European.
Were they Celtic or not? They became Celts when they started speaking a Celtic language. Some people confuse the term Celtic with meaning something more than what language was spoken. For those people, we were not Celtic. We have different genetics, culture, history etc. But using the correct, linguistic term, we were Celtic (some still are). The idea of the term "Celtic" applying to more than just a family of languages is a quite modern idea, that was not created by any researchers, it was created by politicians who defined things to suit themselves, not according to the actual meanings.

dubhthach · 03-02-2011 3:49pm

Johnmb wrote: »

Actually, genetically (and archaeologically) most Irish are pre-celtic. To be Celtic is a linguistic term, you need to speak a Celtic language, it has nothing to do with your DNA. The earliest known people to have spoken a Celtic language do not share our DNA, nor do they share our archaeology. At a much later date there is clear evidence that the people of Ireland had contact with these people and adopted parts of their art and culture, but the people themselves did not invade, or even arrive here in many numbers.

On a general autosomal level (across all 23 pairs of chromosomes) I'd agree with you. However on the Y-Chromosome that is passed down father to son most Irish men do not carry a Y-Chromosome of the first settlers.

90% of Irish men are R1b (plus subclades) most of remaining 10% belong to Haplogroup I which is the oldest male haplogroup in Europe and which is dominant in remote areas such as Scandinavia and the mountains of the balkans. The dominant R1b subclade in Ireland is L21 which shows it's highest genetic variability in Northern France and in the Rhineland. The L21 mutation has been dated to about 3700 years ago -- in other words the ancestor of all men who carry the mutation lived then.

In comparison Newgrange was built about 3100-2900 BC (5100-4900 years ago). -- there's no way that the common male ancestor for most Irish men was in Ireland at the time. Especially as the highest genetic variation among L21 men is on the continent (in other words it didn't evolve in Ireland)

Just to put genetic breakdown into perspective. I had 16 great great-grandparents.

Autosomally I have DNA from all 16 (different proportions)
Y-chromosome- I have DNA from 1
Mitochondrial DNA - I have DNA from 1

In a case where "Elite dominance" comes into play what happens is over generations the number of sons (who can then pass on same Y-chromosome) for the "new elite" ends up surpassing and replacing the Haplogroup of the pre-existing male population.

Example: Population of 1000 men (Haplogroup I1), new elite population of 10 men (r1b). Each generation I1 men will have 2 sons who will make it to adulthood (and possibility of passing on the Y). In comparison the new elite due to better access to resources have 3 sons who can pass on their Y.

By generational cohort we see:

In such a "controlled scenario" we see that the Y-chromosome that belonged to the "invading males" who made up 1% of male population (0.5% of total population) ends up been carried by a majority of the male population within a period of 12 generations. Now as I said that's a "controlled scenario" but even if it took 30 generations on an average generation gap of 30 years you are looking at 900year period.

With regards to other Indo-European populations, the Germanics carry a very high percentage of U106 which is a sister clade to the parent of L21 (P312)

Regarding Sykes his book was published in 2005, a huge amount was discovered about the structure of R1b in the 6 years since. Compare the R tree here in 2005 to 2009

I think the Celtic languages are considerably older then either Hallstat or La Tene material cultures. The computed separation age between Irish and Welsh is about 5-600 BC which is dated before the onset of La Tène. Likewise the distance between Gaulish and Old Irish is earlier. It has been proposed that the common proto-Celtic language arose anywhere up to 2,000BC (pre-dating hallstat by about 1,000 years)

The Ancient Irish: Celts, Gaels; or just Irish

Comments