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
The Ancient Irish: Celts, Gaels; or just Irish
Options
Comments
-
??? 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.Feckin_Eejit wrote: »You don't say? Can you substantiate that claim that the ancient Irish had very little contact with each other?0 -
??? 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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.0
-
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
Talk about pedantic...jaysus.0
-
But you would appear to be contradicting yourself. You clearly said: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.
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.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.0 -
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:
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.… that the ancient Irish were an unorganized people who had little contact with each other.
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?]0 -
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.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.
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.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,
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.like other societies, there was contact and communication at all levels between themselves and with other societies elsewhere.
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.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.
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.St. Patrick, an escaped slave, by his own testimony tells us he travelled the length of Ireland and took ship to the Continent.
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?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.
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.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.
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?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 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?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.
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!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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Okay, so much of this information is wrong that it's hard to know where to start!
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.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.
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.You would have originally had "hunter-gathers" who were then followed by the first farmers.
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.Due to higher productivity of farming these would have outbred and subsume the original hunter-gather population.
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.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)
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.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.
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
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.0 -
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)0 -
Advertisement
-
The new interpretation of the genetics does not make the older interpretations wrong, they merely point out that they are not as clear cut. While they do claim a more recent split, about 4000 years ago iirc, they also have a caveat that it could go back as far as 10000 years ago, which would still be in agreement with the previous interpretations. It should also be noted that there has never been any evidence of an invasion by Celtic speaking people, ever. That myth came about by an assumption made a long time ago that it was the only way we could have ended up speaking Irish. Every bit of evidence found showed it to be a false assumption, and eventually that was accepted. Even when it is an invasion of a few who conquer the many, that few bring new traditions with them (burials, artifacts, etc). No such new traditions appear in Ireland. Everything is built on what existed before, no big changes as would be expected if a new group of people were in charge.0
-
The new interpretation of the genetics does not make the older interpretations wrong, they merely point out that they are not as clear cut. While they do claim a more recent split, about 4000 years ago iirc, they also have a caveat that it could go back as far as 10000 years ago, which would still be in agreement with the previous interpretations. It should also be noted that there has never been any evidence of an invasion by Celtic speaking people, ever. That myth came about by an assumption made a long time ago that it was the only way we could have ended up speaking Irish. Every bit of evidence found showed it to be a false assumption, and eventually that was accepted. Even when it is an invasion of a few who conquer the many, that few bring new traditions with them (burials, artifacts, etc). No such new traditions appear in Ireland. Everything is built on what existed before, no big changes as would be expected if a new group of people were in charge.
Surely the arrival of the Bell Beaker people show a major change from the pre-existing megalithic culture right? Not only do you have adoption of metal there are changes in burial practises, ritual usage of stone circles, hoards deposition, ritual ponds etc.
The difference between the two major Y Haplogroups is very important, Haplogroup I* and R* last shared a common ancestor about 40-45,000 years ago. The general consensus is that Haplogroup I* was the dominant haplogroup among Mesolithic men. In comparison Haplogroup R* is reckoned to have developed in central asia. There is a strong correlation between different branches of Indo-European and R* sub-haplogroups.
Interesting some of the recent population genetics work which looks at 500k markers across the whole genome (not just Y/mitochondrial) shows that most European populations show between 5 and 10% west asian admixture. This admixture also carries across into the India subcontinent among Indo-European speakers. However Basques and the Dravidian speakers of southern India show next to none of this admixture. Irish people tend on the lower end of scale compared to say continentals, the results show a cline. The further east you go the greater the admixture.0 -
Are there such things as 'Celtic' genes?Regarding the "Celts" genetically 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)
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.0 -
So how did the people of Ireland end up speaking a Celtic language? You go on to say:It should also be noted that there has never been any evidence of an invasion by Celtic speaking people, ever. That myth came about by an assumption made a long time ago that it was the only way we could have ended up speaking Irish. Every bit of evidence found showed it to be a false assumption, and eventually that was accepted.
What period are we talking about here? You discount wholesale invasion of Celtic speaking peoples and now seem to be saying that there wasn't even an 'elite takeover'.Even when it is an invasion of a few who conquer the many, that few bring new traditions with them (burials, artifacts, etc). No such new traditions appear in Ireland.
Was Ireland a Celtic speaking island from the very beginning? Did the Irish language arrive in Ireland with the very first people to come here?Everything is built on what existed before, no big changes as would be expected if a new group of people were in charge.0 -
Surely the arrival of the Bell Beaker people show a major change from the pre-existing megalithic culture right? Not only do you have adoption of metal there are changes in burial practises, ritual usage of stone circles, hoards deposition, ritual ponds etc.
long as I remember, and I am a bit rusty on my bronze age archaeology, but at the time everything remained the same except with the addition of beakers, ie the burials were the same and all that was different was the addition of beaker pottery, so means the people were the same just they adopted a new form of pottery, archaeologically speaking. Long as I know too the stone circles were later as well as the addition of bronze than the beaker period. The Beaker people theory has been completely caste out in archaeological circles and books for quite a while now.0 -
Most likely through trade contacts. As with most things, once the elite start doing something, the rest will follow. Given how fragmented the island was at the time, Goidelic was probably used for inter-Thuath contacts as well as foreign contacts, so it eventually just replaced the previous language(s).Ozymandiaz wrote: »So how did the people of Ireland end up speaking a Celtic language?
The arrival of Celtic is usually attributed to about 400BC, but what I said is true for any pre-Viking period. All the changes in the archaeology of Ireland can be described as evolution, not revolution. Exactly what you'd expect if those changes came about by the existing people trying new things rather than what would be expected if new people brought their own pre-existing things.You go on to say: What period are we talking about here?
I'm not a linguist, so as far as I am aware, that would be possible. However, those with knowledge of the subject say no, at the time Ireland was first settled, Indo-European languages didn't exist, let alone the Celtic languages. There is evidence of a different language being spoken in Ireland until at least the 5th century AD, but nothing is known of that language other than it wasn't a Goidelic.You discount wholesale invasion of Celtic speaking peoples and now seem to be saying that there wasn't even an 'elite takeover'. Was Ireland a Celtic speaking island from the very beginning? Did the Irish language arrive in Ireland with the very first people to come here?0 -
This is mere speculation. I am not aware of any society ever adopting a new language as a result of trading contacts and through that medium alone. Is there evidence for this in Ireland?Most likely through trade contacts.
The elite? Elites value and defend their position in society. They pride themselves on their genealogy and heritage. It is always in their interest to guard the status quo and patronize those who perpetuate it. They never seek to engage in trade, let alone adopt the foreign tongue of outside traders. Linguistic change via the mechanism of an elite usually involves conquest and takeover. Social elites – rulers – identified with the prevailing warrior code. They would not align themselves with the language of alien traders but they would be coerced by a new political force representing a new people or dynasty. Can you explain how trade results in a ‘royal’ household adopting a foreign tongue?As with most things, once the elite start doing something, the rest will follow.
You seem to be implying that trade with Ireland was only ever conducted in a Celtic language, Goidelic. It also seems to me that if Ireland was fragmented, as you say, that would militate against the spread of ‘outside’ linguistic influences.Given how fragmented the island was at the time, Goidelic was probably used for inter-Thuath contacts as well as foreign contacts, so it eventually just replaced the previous language(s).
If there is any merit in your speculations that trade was a medium for such radical social change as the adoption of a foreign language one wonders why the Vikings did not have a greater linguistic impact on Ireland. The effect on Irish was the absorption of new words associated with trade, shipping and urban dwelling; it affected vocabulary, not syntax or grammar, and there was certainly no adoption of a new language. It should also be borne in mind that such words as did enter the Irish language through trade with Vikings did not rely on any agency of an elite.The arrival of Celtic is usually attributed to about 400BC, but what I said is true for any pre-Viking period.
I accept that. Most social change is brought about by evolution; revolution is a rarity. But archaeology deals in physical remains only and it can never tell us about language unless it provides direct physical evidence (e.g. survival of written examples). More has been lost to us than archaeology has recovered. It is folly to dismiss revolution. In this context we have plenty of historical examples of language change through invasion, usually on a small scale involving an elite takeover. An example is the ultimate change over to English in Britain from the original Brittonic and the change from Irish to English in Ireland. The genetic impact of the Angles, Saxons, etc., on south and eastern Britain was minimal yet their language took hold.All the changes in the archaeology of Ireland can be described as evolution, not revolution. Exactly what you'd expect if those changes came about by the existing people trying new things rather than what would be expected if new people brought their own pre-existing things.0 -
So is the idea of the language coming over via invasion. The difference is that all evidence points against any invasion, no evidence points against trade and contacts.Ozymandiaz wrote: »This is mere speculation. I am not aware of any society ever adopting a new language as a result of trading contacts and through that medium alone. Is there evidence for this in Ireland?
Are you for real? Most, if not all, elite in history have traded with foreign cultures. It is the ability to have something exotic that the peasants can't afford that allows them to show that they are in fact the elite of their society.The elite? Elites value and defend their position in society. They pride themselves on their genealogy and heritage. It is always in their interest to guard the status quo and patronize those who perpetuate it. They never seek to engage in trade,
If you want to trade, and you speak an uncommon language from a small society, you will have to learn the language of the people you want to trade with, they won't waste their time learning yours.let alone adopt the foreign tongue of outside traders.
That is a modern way of thinking, now that language is so closely connected with the idea of a nation. An idea that simply didn't exist back then.Linguistic change via the mechanism of an elite usually involves conquest and takeover. Social elites – rulers – identified with the prevailing warrior code. They would not align themselves with the language of alien traders but they would be coerced by a new political force representing a new people or dynasty.
We didn't have royal households. There was competition between numerous people for the kingship. They would all have to be capable of showing their wealth with exotic goods, and speaking the language would give them an advantage (or more to the point, not speaking it would put them at a disadvantage).Can you explain how trade results in a ‘royal’ household adopting a foreign tongue?
Because the Vikings, when they started to trade on an equal footing, learned the languages of their main trading partners. Hence those settling in Ireland learning Irish, those settling in France learning French, etc.You seem to be implying that trade with Ireland was only ever conducted in a Celtic language, Goidelic. It also seems to me that if Ireland was fragmented, as you say, that would militate against the spread of ‘outside’ linguistic influences. If there is any merit in your speculations that trade was a medium for such radical social change as the adoption of a foreign language one wonders why the Vikings did not have a greater linguistic impact on Ireland.
I'm not sure what your point here is. No archaeologist has claimed to know how or why Goidelic became the main language in Ireland, all they have said is that there was no invasion.The effect on Irish was the absorption of new words associated with trade, shipping and urban dwelling; it affected vocabulary, not syntax or grammar, and there was certainly no adoption of a new language. It should also be borne in mind that such words as did enter the Irish language through trade with Vikings did not rely on any agency of an elite. I accept that. Most social change is brought about by evolution; revolution is a rarity. But archaeology deals in physical remains only and it can never tell us about language unless it provides direct physical evidence (e.g. survival of written examples).
But there is plenty of archaeological evidence to show that they did in fact take over large tracts of England, despite not leaving much genetic evidence. As for your claims that wholesale language change doesn't happen without invasion, look at France as a modern day example. No English speaking country has ever conquered France, yet they are so worried about it getting a foothold they actually pass laws to limit its effects. That is is modern times, when nationalism is running strong, and their own language is looked on with pride and as a sign of who they are as a people. Imagine if this was happening a few hundred years ago, before the idea of nationalism took hold. No laws would be passed to protect French, and then it would just be a matter of time before it was replaced with something much more akin to English. It is believed that Celtic arrived in Ireland about 400BCE, as that is the period when influences from Celtic speaking regions can first be found in Ireland. There is evidence of a different language being spoken up until at least about 400CE. That's 800 years for Celtic/Goidelic to replace that older language(s), in a place that had no nationalist ideas, and therefore very little reason to go out of their way to protect their existing language, but great incentive to learn and use the new language.More has been lost to us than archaeology has recovered. It is folly to dismiss revolution. In this context we have plenty of historical examples of language change through invasion, usually on a small scale involving an elite takeover. An example is the ultimate change over to English in Britain from the original Brittonic and the change from Irish to English in Ireland. The genetic impact of the Angles, Saxons, etc., on south and eastern Britain was minimal yet their language took hold.0 -
I have already stated my view that a change of language (not just the natural process of borrowing new words and phrases) requires more than trade contacts. Archaeologists (e.g. Raftery and others) state that there is no evidence of a Celtic invasion into Ireland. If by ‘Celtic’ they mean ‘speakers of a Celtic language’ they are over-stepping the boundaries of what archaeology can tell us. Archaeologists deal in artifacts – physical remains – which can tell us nothing about the language of their makers or their users. So-called Celtic artifacts are identified by their style and decoration, and even that it is not a precise science.
The impasse seems to be that, on the one hand, archaeologists cannot point to any invasion of Ireland in prehistory yet, on the other, the whole island of Ireland adopted Celtic language either direct from the Continent or from Britain or from both. Ireland was not unique in adopting Celtic language: Britain did also, and we know from classical and later writers like Tacitus and Caesar that Britain was not only invaded in prehistory but that people from Britain migrated to the Continent. Why would Ireland be unique in this respect? Why, after the first peoples settled in Ireland, did nobody else migrate here? Migration was a common feature in ancient times. The Helvetii wanted to relocate from Switzerland to the Atlantic coast of France. Angles and Saxons crossed the north sea into Britain; Britons crossed and settled Britanny.
My argument is that you cannot have a language change without a movement of people. That can be a large body of people who by their numbers physically impose their own language on a region they settle (e.g conquest and plantation, e.g. North America); or it can be by a smaller number of people who are highly influential (elite takeover, e.g. Anglo-Saxon Britain); or it can be a combination of both (e.g. Ireland). Whatever the mechanism, it involves the migration of speakers of an alien language into the new territory.
Also, it is important to realize, from the perspective of the society being imposed upon, language change is not voluntarily undertaken. Language is probably the most conservative aspect of society and the last thing that is relinquished. It is so hard-wired into the brains of adults that there is a natural imperative that motivates parents to want to hand it on to their children. History tells us that whenever this imperative has been set aside the circumstances involve conquest and survival. This process occurred in sub-Roman England with the Anglo-Saxons and in Ireland with the ‘English’. It does not always happen. In Ireland the Normans adopted Irish, becaming more Irish than the Irish themselves, and in Britain the Normans adopted English. However, the reverse is never true: I do not know of any instance where a society repudiated its own language for an alien one without there being some form of migration and coercive contact.
The notion that a society will renounce its own language to adopt that of traders with whom it wants to do business is preposterous. Your model of language change via trade alone is not attested anywhere, whereas invasion or elite takeover is.
You contradict yourself. If that is true then why didn’t we adopt the language of the Vikings who traded with us. You say:If you want to trade, and you speak an uncommon language from a small society, you will have to learn the language of the people you want to trade with, they won't waste their time learning yours.
According to your own proposition that the Irish adopted the language of those with whom they traded the French should have adopted ‘Viking’! You are admitting the opposite of what you claim. Why didn’t Ireland and France adopt the language of these Viking traders?… the Vikings, when they started to trade on an equal footing, learned the languages of their main trading partners. Hence those settling in Ireland learning Irish, those settling in France learning French, etc.
Yes we did. There were ruling elites or dynasties in every tuatha in Ireland whose living represents at any time would have constituted the ‘royal’ household of that tuath. Some were powerful enough to claim hegemony as regional kings over a number of tuatha. What we didn’t have was a national royal house. That is irrelevant here. Regional kings and rí tuatha, along with their supporting elite, while being open to and desiring 'foreign' luxuries and new expensive imports that set them apart from the plebians and emphasised there elevated position, were conservative of social customs and the status quo, and were custodains of their heritage and language.We didn't have royal households. There was competition between numerous people for the kingship. They would all have to be capable of showing their wealth with exotic goods, and speaking the language would give them an advantage (or more to the point, not speaking it would put them at a disadvantage).
I should think that no archaeologist would be so stupid as to make claims about language change based on physical artifacts. My point is this: for there to have been a change in language (not just an intake of new words which is common in all languages) there must have been an influx of people who spoke the new language and who must have had a sufficient advantage over the native society to give momentum to that change. One of the last things anybody will give up is their language and they will only do it out of necessity, not choice.I'm not sure what your point here is. No archaeologist has claimed to know how or why Goidelic became the main language in Ireland, all they have said is that there was no invasion.
So, are you agreeing then that England is an example of language change following an invasion?… there is plenty of archaeological evidence to show that [the Angles and Saxons) did in fact take over large tracts of England, despite not leaving much genetic evidence.
Exactly! And it still speaks French despite trading with England. No invasion, no change in language.As for your claims that wholesale language change doesn't happen without invasion, look at France as a modern day example. No English speaking country has ever conquered France,
That is a common fear in all languages. Witness the native Irish resistance to what they call Béarlachas. Look at all the words from Irish that have gone into the English language.… yet [the French] are so worried about [English] getting a foothold they actually pass laws to limit its effects.
The process of assimilation of foreign words from dozens of other languages has been going on with English for centuries. They have not legislated against this process in the past and yet English is in no danger of losing its identity as langauage.Imagine if this was happening a few hundred years ago, before the idea of nationalism took hold. No laws would be passed to protect French, and then it would just be a matter of time before it was replaced with something much more akin to English.
That surviving ‘different language’ in pre-Christian Ireland – Iarnbélre – may have been Celtic in nature, even Brittonic. The only pre-Celtic language in the British Isles that may have been non Celtic was Pictish. Although I agree that 800 years of linguistic evolution would have wrought major changes in the language spoken in Ireland it would not have been enough to change it from a non-Celtic to a Celtic one. English has had an independent existence in the US for 400 years and remains Germanic in character. The Irish still spoken in the Gaeltachts has existed for even longer alongside English and, aside from borrowing many English words into its vocabulary, remains Irish in grammar and syntax.It is believed that Celtic arrived in Ireland about 400BCE, as that is the period when influences from Celtic speaking regions can first be found in Ireland. There is evidence of a different language being spoken up until at least about 400CE. That's 800 years for Celtic/Goidelic to replace that older language(s), in a place that had no nationalist ideas, and therefore very little reason to go out of their way to protect their existing language, but great incentive to learn and use the new language.
Archaeologists say there were no invasions into Ireland in prehistoric times - are they all agreed on this? - yet the Irish have had a language change. I say that could only be effected by a migration of people into the country, however large or small, who were sufficiently influential, for whatever reason, to impose their language on the native population.0 -
Advertisement
-
to be quite honest, the only thing that could have been possibly missed by archaeologists is a small invasion of a select elite, but as discussion has shown that examples of this in the past, viking and norman, did not change the language of the host people, the only example of the language changing is with large colonisation as was with english and then gradual methods of coercian and manipulation over a very long period. If it was like the english colonisation then there would be massive evidence in the archaeology that this happened, which is so far lacking. Ireland is also unique among modern european nations that we still speak the language of our colonisers, czech republic, I believe, is an example of the opposite, that went from a mostly german speaking colony to a mostly czech speaking nation.
Im not saying that there wasnt an invasion, just archaeologically speaking there isnt enough evidence for this. Linguistics are impossible to trace in the pre-historic period and its hard to say how ireland adopted its language, and also a language so different to its nearest neightbour, britonic. Linguists guess that indo-european language came into being about 2,000 BC, if this is the case it could have been brought to ireland any time between then and when the historic period started in Ireland. Perhaps Irish is a mix between celtic languages and the language that existed beforehand, whatever that is, and the celtic words were adoptions like the later influences on irish but as all things in this regard it is only a guess.0
Advertisement