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
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Originally Posted by Johnmb viewpost.gif

    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.
    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:
    elite-replacement.JPG
    Where are your links/facts to back up your assertions Johnmb, as dubhthach has posted info/link to back up his ?


  • Options
    #63
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    subedei wrote: »
    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.

    Well there are some differences though with Vikings/Normans. Namely neither of them conquered the country, though the Normans came close. Though by the late 14th century most of norman conquest had fallen back into "Gaelic hands" (be they native or gaelicised normans). The vikings were even more niche in areas of control and of course they married into the local Irish "royalty". To succeed you need to destroy the native ruling class or convert them. When you think about it English was present in Ireland for 500years without making a serious dent in Irish language (1200-1700). However once the native elite had been all but destroyed post 1651 you see the beginning of a decline in Irish. It's often estimated that half the population of Ireland was lost during the Cromwellian wars. Within 150 years (1800) Irish was down to about 50% of population, that and we all know the effect the famine had.

    With regards to Brythonic, well they are actually closest related language groups to one another. The problem that we have now is of course that they had 2,500 years of development on their own paths (English/Dutch are about 1,500 years seperate in comparison). In general though about 40-50% of words have cognatives in either language plus they share a number of inovations such as VSO (verb subject object), Initial mutations (eg. Máire -> a Mháire -- m becomes a w) etc.

    Regarding the Czech republic, it had a native Czech elite until the onset of the 30year war in the 17th century. Afterwards you saw attempts by Austria to germanise the country. In general alot of the urban areas were majority german speaking by the 19th century when the Czech revival movement began. The countryside remained Czech speaking though and once the Industrial revolution kicked off you ended up with migration of Czech speakers into the cities to work in factories. Anyways part of reason why there are few German speakers there anymore is they expelled 95%+ of their german speaking citzens after World War II.

    As for pre-historic languages, generally linguists do what they call comparative analysis to determine the break points in a language. The computated spilt between Goeldic and Brythonic is about 500BC, between both and Gaulish is about 1,000BC. Proto-Celtic has been reconstructed using Old Irish, Old Welsh and the surviving Gaulish and Celtiberian corpus.

    Irish has a number of archaism compared to Welsh and Gaulish, namely the perservation of Proto-Celtic *k which shifted to *p in Welsh/Gaulish. This is also seen in Celtiberian inscriptions from spain.

    Regarding age of Proto-Indo-European the linguists tend to agree around 3,700BC though you get proposed ages that are older and younger (generally by a 1,000 years or so), generally the Bronze age is reckoned to have started in Europe around 3,000BC. There are some theories that the spread of Bronze usage in Europe went hand in hand with "Indo-Europeans", for example there is continuation in Scandinavia from Bronze age culture through to Iron age (pre-roman contact 1CE). Generally the "homeland" for the development of the Germanic languages is South Sweden/Jutland.

    Anyways no doubt in 100-200 years some new discoveries will be found that will make our arguments seem "quaint" :D


  • Options
    #64
    subedei
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭subedei


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Well there are some differences though with Vikings/Normans. Namely neither of them conquered the country, though the Normans came close. Though by the late 14th century most of norman conquest had fallen back into "Gaelic hands" (be they native or gaelicised normans). The vikings were even more niche in areas of control and of course they married into the local Irish "royalty". To succeed you need to destroy the native ruling class or convert them. When you think about it English was present in Ireland for 500years without making a serious dent in Irish language (1200-1700). However once the native elite had been all but destroyed post 1651 you see the beginning of a decline in Irish. It's often estimated that half the population of Ireland was lost during the Cromwellian wars. Within 150 years (1800) Irish was down to about 50% of population, that and we all know the effect the famine had.

    Very true, but both examples of a new elite entering the system, even if they only controlled parts of the country, shows that they adapted, vikings eventually were under the dominion of the Gaelic lords, and adapted the Irish customs too, becoming Hiberno Norse as they did in France, becoming Franco Norse. The same with the Normans as you say. English were more successful. According to the link below, it is a matter of debate as to how much Irish was spoken by the 1800's but the number of people speaking irish was increasing as irish speaking areas were the ones with the largest population growths. The catastrophy for the language was I believe, as you mentioned, the famine but also the policys of British rule in the 19th century and also the inept policys of the independant Irish government in the 20th. One also has to remember that the period of colonisation of European powers, Europe had excess populations which would not have been true of earlier eras when populations were much lower, so the possiblity of a colonial invasion of Ireland is not likely in the iron age anywhere near the needed magnitude of the British colonisation of Ireland.

    http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/09/14/the-irish-language-part-i-decline/
    dubhthach wrote: »
    Regarding the Czech republic, it had a native Czech elite until the onset of the 30year war in the 17th century. Afterwards you saw attempts by Austria to germanise the country. In general alot of the urban areas were majority german speaking by the 19th century when the Czech revival movement began. The countryside remained Czech speaking though and once the Industrial revolution kicked off you ended up with migration of Czech speakers into the cities to work in factories. Anyways part of reason why there are few German speakers there anymore is they expelled 95%+ of their german speaking citzens after World War II.

    Well suppose the biggest difference between Ireland and czech republic was the famine then, this destroyed the majority of the irish speaking poor rather than the elite. Also in the 20th century you could say that a large portion of the elite in Ireland did speak irish, yet the elite were not able to reverse the language shift. So it would seem that what is needed for a language shift is colonisation or large populations of speakers being introduced.

    I wont argue against your linguistic information as just like genetics I have not read enough on the issue to make a truly educated arguement.
    dubhthach wrote: »
    Regarding age of Proto-Indo-European the linguists tend to agree around 3,700BC though you get proposed ages that are older and younger (generally by a 1,000 years or so), generally the Bronze age is reckoned to have started in Europe around 3,000BC. There are some theories that the spread of Bronze usage in Europe went hand in hand with "Indo-Europeans", for example there is continuation in Scandinavia from Bronze age culture through to Iron age (pre-roman contact 1CE). Generally the "homeland" for the development of the Germanic languages is South Sweden/Jutland.

    Well obviously they have massively updated the start date for indo european languages, and if this is the case, then we have the possible introduction of irish taking place gradually over 4,000 years, since we have no history that could chart the continious evolution of a language over that length of time we have no way of truly knowing what can happen.

    As it stands though the linguistics dont seem to suggest an iron age invasion, perhaps a bronze age one, going by your information (as the date set for the introduction of Iron was around 400 BC in Ireland), the split at 500 bc as well 1000 bc could have been natural evolution, which would suggest a mid to late bronze age origin then of the celtic languages introduction. Even more unfortunately tho, going back to archaeology, the Bronze age shows even less of a possibility of an invasion than the Iron age, as we know alot more about the bronze age archaeologically than the Iron age.

    On a side note, and this is not meant in an arguementive manner but what are sources do you have for your genetic information? As I would be interested in pursuing that further, and also your sources for your linguistic arguement or perhaps a suggested book/s? Not trying to make this part of the arguement, just interested in further reading.


  • Options
    #65
    Enkidu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    Johnmb wrote: »
    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.
    Actually the scenario considered the most likely today is that Ireland originally spoke an non-Indo-European language and then Indo-European arrived, but possibly before Celtic. So there may have been an Indo-European dialect here before Celtic. Similar to Spain where you had:
    Old European -> Old European and Celtic Mixture -> Latin -> Spanish + Catalonian + ...

    We could have had:
    Old European -> Old European and Indo-European dialect -> Celtic -> Goidelc

    Also, there is the open question as to whether Celtic arrived here as Gaulish or Proto-Celtic. Of course the linguistic evidence points strongly to Gaulish.

    Also at the earliest period of written history Ireland had some P-Celtic languages, we think. Very confusing stuff!


  • Options
    #66
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    Ozymandiaz wrote: »
    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.
    And that is your view. You won't find too many linguists who support you. My view is that there are other ways for a language to change. Linguists actually study these things, the process is known as language shift, and it does not only happen due to invasions or migrations.
    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.
    They mean there was no invasion, by anybody. The "anybody" part includes those who spoke Cletic languages at the time.
    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.
    The impasse is only in your understanding and beliefs as to how language shift happens, there is no impasse with the facts.
    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.
    When do they say Britain was invaded? With regards to Britain, again there was no invasion, nor large migration. In the south-east there was clear and obvious movement to and from Europe, but as you move north and west there is less and less. By the time you reach Wales and north west England, there is, once again, no evidence of anyone from Europe invading at the time.
    Why would Ireland be unique in this respect?
    Ireland is not unique, you just don't seem to realise that your beliefs don't represent facts.
    Why, after the first peoples settled in Ireland, did nobody else migrate here?
    Any number of reasons, the most obvious being location. We are in an extreme location, on the edge of the (then) known world. Much like Scotland, and a number of other places, who don't have a lot of immigration throughout history.
    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.
    The Angles and Saxons moved because they were forced out of their homeland. The Britons, likewise, found themselves being squeezed out. Much like when the Irish Scotti invaded the lands of the Picts, they did so because they were being squeezed out in their own homeland, not because they were bored and wanted somewhere to go. Migration happened out of necessity, and they didn't go any further than they absolutely had to.
    My argument is that you cannot have a language change without a movement of people.
    And that's where your problem lies. No linguist will support your argument. In modern times I can think of two examples that show you to be wrong. Brussels has become a French speaking area, not because the French moved in, or invaded, but because the Flemish speakers became bilingual, and as the city incorporated more of the surrounding French speaking areas into its area, the bilingual speakers had more and more need for French, and less and less need for Flemish. It wasn't until the modern internal borders where created that the decline was stopped. Also, right now, in Malta, English and Italian are endangering Maltese. It is not as a result of invasion or immigration, it is because the young people there now are all more or less bilingual (or even trilingual), and as a result, they are dropping Maltese from their everyday use.
    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).
    That's very presumptuous of you. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it so. I bet you can't find any (real) modern linguist who will support your belief that the only way for language shift to occur is by invasion of people.
    Whatever the mechanism, it involves the migration of speakers of an alien language into the new territory.
    That, again, is only your belief. Find a linguist who agrees with you.
    Also, it is important to realize, from the perspective of the society being imposed upon, language change is not voluntarily undertaken.
    Why is it not voluntarily undertaken? Who is forcing the modern Maltese youth to speak Italian and English?
    Language is probably the most conservative aspect of society and the last thing that is relinquished.
    Says who? The idea of nationalism is only a few hundred years old, and language being associated with that is no older. France has only been speaking French as a national language since about the time of Napoleon. Italian has only been the language of Italy since it was unified. If the idea of being Italian was done away with, why do you think that speaking Italian would be something people would refuse to let go of as well?
    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.
    But it's not. Communication is hardwired in. Parents want to communicate with their children. They'll use whatever language they have to do that.
    History tells us that whenever this imperative has been set aside the circumstances involve conquest and survival.
    History doesn't tell us that at all.
    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.
    Which would seem to go against your own argument above. Why did they drop their own language, considering it was hardwired into them and they could not have been forced by anyone else to do so?
    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.
    I can give you three ancient examples, and one modern one. Ancient Ireland, ancient England (north west at least), ancient Wales (although that could be counted in with England), and modern Malta.
    The notion that a society will renounce its own language to adopt that of traders with whom it wants to do business is preposterous.
    Why? Because it doesn't fit in with your modern thinking, nationalism tainted belief system. (By nationalism tainted, I refer to the general political idea, I'm not saying you are a nationalist for any particular nation).
    Your model of language change via trade alone is not attested anywhere, whereas invasion or elite takeover is.
    Yes, it is. Even in modern, nationalist times it is happening. Countries have to pass laws to protect their national languages, others die out, even when they are being encouraged and protected (or at least left alone).
    You contradict yourself. If that is true then why didn’t we adopt the language of the Vikings who traded with us. You say: 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?
    There is no contradiction there, you just seem to be getting a little desperate and are putting blinkers on to everything else that was going on at the times (which were about 1200 years apart!). When the peoples of Ireland where dealing with the people of Europe, the bulk, if not all, there trade was either internal, or with a Celtic speaking external source. The Vikings never monopolised trade with Ireland to that extent, and they adopted the language of Ireland when they dealt with the Irish. We had no reason to learn their language, they spoke Irish, and we generally wouldn't have much dealing with the "foreign" Vikings who didn't speak Irish (they would go through the "Irish" Vikings).
    Yes we did.
    No, we didn't (have royal households).That is a feudal concept, we were a Brehon Law region.
    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.
    Nope, for one very simple reason, under Brehon Law, the number of people that were entitled to become the king extended beyond what would be regarded as a household. Within the tuath, you'd have as far as 2nd cousins iirc, and within a province you'd have other people that you were even related to who were entitled to become High King.
    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.
    Regarding the language, says who? There were a relatively large number of people who were in line to be King, so it would not be adequate for a single royal house to have trade, all the others would have to have those same trade links to put forward their own claims to the throne when it became available. So they'd have to know the language of trade too. Then you have the foster system that was used at the time. For families outside those who could be kings to keep close and enjoy the benefits of raising a potential future king, they'd have to be capable of teaching that king the language he would need in adulthood, so they needed to know the new language. And so on down the line, until most people are bilingual (local language plus the trade language, in this case being a form of Celtic). Once you have a bilingual population, everything is in place for language shift to take place, without any invasion or migration.
    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.
    But that is not a point, it is your belief, and I doubt you can find and modern (real) expert who will agree with you.
    One of the last things anybody will give up is their language and they will only do it out of necessity, not choice.
    You seem to be basing your whole belief on this. Why do you think people will not happily drop one language that they no longer need if they are bilingual? After a couple of generations have been raised as bilingual, who is to say which of the two languages they will be more attached to? I'd say it is quite the opposite in fact, people only stick to their native language out of necessity, not choice.
    So, are you agreeing then that England is an example of language change following an invasion?
    Yes, it is an example of language shift as a result of invasion. We know this because there is clear evidence to support this in the archaeological record. So, when an elite invades, doesn't leave much DNA evidence, but does cause a language shift, we know that there is going to be evidence, and what that evidence is likely to be, and it doesn't exist in Ireland.
    Exactly! And it still speaks French despite trading with England. No invasion, no change in language.
    But change is happening, that's why they are making laws to halt the changes.
    That is a common fear in all languages.
    Why would it be a fear if the only way for language shift to happen was, as you believe, via invasion?
    Witness the native Irish resistance to what they call Béarlachas. Look at all the words from Irish that have gone into the English language. 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.
    That's because English is currently the dominant language. It is not currently in dander of being replaced by any other language, other languages are in danger of being replaced by English (or an English-like language). And what is English generally referred to as nowadays? The language of trade!
    That surviving ‘different language’ in pre-Christian Ireland – Iarnbélre
    Nope, I'm referring to the language of the Partraige people from western Ireland.
    – 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.
    Actually, modern scholars now believe that Pictish was most likely a P-Celtic language.
    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.
    Why not?
    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.
    So? English is the dominant language currently, so it's not likely to change for several hundred more years (other than evolutionary changes). Irish exists now because of a nationalist movement to save it. If no such movement existed it probably wouldn't exist now.
    Archaeologists say there were no invasions into Ireland in prehistoric times - are they all agreed on this?
    They are all agreed that there is no evidence to support any claims that an invasion took place, yes.
    - 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.
    You have said that, yes. But your reasoning is simply wrong. Once again, I challenge to to find any modern (real) linguist who will support you in your belief that language shift can only occur due to an invasion of new people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Where are your links/facts to back up your assertions Johnmb, as dubhthach has posted info/link to back up his ?
    I've made quite a few assertions in the post you quoted. I assume you are referring specifically to the DNA reference. I'll have to look it up to try and find it, however it refers to the few DNA samples that we have from people who lived in the region at the time. Their modern descendants still live (mostly) in central Europe, not Ireland. I'll try to find the book that research was mentioned in.


  • Options
    #68
    subedei
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭subedei


    This may have some bearing for this thread, the part about iron age ireland. Its the new 'Story of Ireland' Show on RTE player online:

    http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1091139


  • Options
    #69
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Denerick wrote: »
    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.

    It seems certain that many artifacts found in Ireland are of Celtic origin being similar to other artifacts found in Celtic Europe.

    Celtic/Gaelic became a word to describe pre anglo-norman Ireland.
    The fact that such a culture existed is not hogwash, although calling it such for political reasons is.


  • Options
    #70
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    fontanalis wrote: »
    .......I think the term Celt was also used as a nationalist label just to show countries like Scotland, Wales and Ireland weren't English.
    .....

    I think all concerned especially the English knew that Scots, Irish and Welsh werent English. The term "Celtic" may have been used to latch onto a glorified past. This isnt unusual, nearly all cultures do it including the English.

    If people are different (as perceived by them) then the labels they use to mark the difference are of little consequence. If not these then another.

    The most enduring remains may be from language. Sassenach (saxons) in Gaelic was used to describe the English. There was a word for Irish people, Scots and Welsh. So while the nature of Celticness in this island can be disputed, youre attributing Celticness as a tool to show that countries werent English is incorrect. These countries werent English, their languages tell us so. The label Celtic describes what they were. If Celtic means something different in these islands than in mainland Europe then well an good. It was a label not really making us less or more English or anything else for that matter.


  • Options
    #71
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    T runner wrote: »
    I think all concerned especially the English knew that Scots, Irish and Welsh werent English. The term "Celtic" may have been used to latch onto a glorified past. This isnt unusual, nearly all cultures do it including the English.

    If people are different (as perceived by them) then the labels they use to mark the difference are of little consequence. If not these then another.

    The most enduring remains may be from language. Sassenach (saxons) in Gaelic was used to describe the English. There was a word for Irish people, Scots and Welsh. So while the nature of Celticness in this island can be disputed, youre attributing Celticness as a tool to show that countries werent English is incorrect. These countries werent English, their languages tell us so. The label Celtic describes what they were. If Celtic means something different in these islands than in mainland Europe then well an good. It was a label not really making us less or more English or anything else for that matter.

    I'm not attributing it; I'm saying others did. Personally I think the term celt should be used as a linguistic and as a cultural label to cover a wide group of people over a wide geographical area over a large space of time, but you have to admit there is almost a nationalistic/ethnic aura about the term.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Enkidu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    Well the people of Ireland and Britain after around 500 BCE were certainly Celtic linguistically. The languages spoken here were related to the ones on the continent spoken by the Gauls, Celtiberians, Leptons and Galatians. You see a common set of innovations in the grammatical structure compared with the original grammar of Proto-Indo-European. It's these grammar innovations along with some phonetic ones, that define Celtic.

    These innovations originally developed in dialects of Proto-Indo-European in the Halstatt region of Austria.

    However associating a culture to these languages is very difficult. Certainly all the cultures had similar gods, something usually passed along by language transfer. However other aspects of the culture are difficult to nail down. Probably there was no common culture which unified the Celts from the Irish to the Galatians, except for language and certain elements of religion.


  • Options
    #73
    subedei
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭subedei


    Enkidu wrote: »
    These innovations originally developed in dialects of Proto-Indo-European in the Halstatt region of Austria.

    Well this is not certain, with recent discoveries in western spain, some scholars are beginning to suggest an atlantic origin for celtic languages and move east rather than west.
    Enkidu wrote: »
    Probably there was no common culture which unified the Celts from the Irish to the Galatians, except for language and certain elements of religion.

    Well gods there certainly was, eg. oghma in Ireland, Ogmios in Gaul, Lugh in Ireland, Lugus in Gaul, Danu in Ireland, danube in Gaul. As for culture, the early Irish literature does show remarkable similarities to what classical authors wrote about Celtic peoples, so much so u could say early Irish literature is an Iron age culture with medieval weaponry. Tho none of the authors ever said they were celtic, even later medieval British sources (even tho they are biased), show the irish practiced some religious activitys and even warfare similar to the classical celts but again they made no claim the irish were celtic. Linguistically, religiously and culturally one could say the irish were Celtic, not heard any expert dispute that, where the issue is, is with archaeology and genetics, which show a different picture.


  • Options
    #74
    Enkidu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    subedei wrote: »
    Well this is not certain, with recent discoveries in western spain, some scholars are beginning to suggest an atlantic origin for celtic languages and move east rather than west.
    Recent discoveries in Western Spain? What discoveries are these? I would find this highly unlikely. Firstly Proto-Indo-European arrived in the Halstatt region first. Secondly there are migrations from the Halstatt region into the regions which are latter Celtic speaking on the continent. Thirdly Irish and Welsh have additional innovations which would be very difficult to imagine coming first. They have atypical word order for example and initial mutations. It would be hard to imagine that Continental Celtic would lose all this innovations while coming up with none of its own, i.e. becoming more like Proto-Indo-European in a chronologically correct way.
    Linguistically, religiously and culturally one could say the irish were Celtic, not heard any expert dispute that, where the issue is, is with archaeology and genetics, which show a different picture.
    I wouldn't be certain of the culture part. Burial rights were very different as well as legal and moral attitudes, also attitudes to the seasons, warfare technology, e.t.c. Linguistically and somewhat religiously Ireland was Celtic. However I wouldn't be so sure of culturally.


  • Options
    #75
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    I probably should have said a vague cultural similarity. My main point is that the term Celt seems to have different meanings to different people and it shouldn't be used to describe some monolithic group of people that didn't exist.


  • Options
    #76
    subedei
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭subedei


    Enkidu wrote: »
    Recent discoveries in Western Spain? What discoveries are these? I would find this highly unlikely. Firstly Proto-Indo-European arrived in the Halstatt region first.

    http://www.amazon.com/Celtic-West-Alternative-Perspectives-Publications/dp/184217410X
    Secondly there are migrations from the Halstatt region into the regions which are latter Celtic speaking on the continent. Thirdly Irish and Welsh have additional innovations which would be very difficult to imagine coming first. They have atypical word order for example and initial mutations. It would be hard to imagine that Continental Celtic would lose all this innovations while coming up with none of its own, i.e. becoming more like Proto-Indo-European in a chronologically correct way.

    Well we only have irish from the 4th century AD as far as I know, so there would surely be innovations in Irish and welsh after 400+ years of conquest of Gaul and Iberia and a gradual displacement of their celtic languages to a latin one. But I am no expert in this field, I am not saying you are wrong, just saying what is currently being discussed.

    I wouldn't be certain of the culture part. Burial rights were very different as well as legal and moral attitudes, also attitudes to the seasons, warfare technology, e.t.c. Linguistically and somewhat religiously Ireland was Celtic. However I wouldn't be so sure of culturally.

    Yes of course there is regional differences in the religion, like some differing gods or names of gods, as it is with Hinduism as well but they are still hindus. As for Irish culture being Celtic, again I am not saying your wrong, only going by what I have read and heard, even classical sources that the people of ireland were very similar to the British in culture, brehon laws actually show remarkable similarities to early Sanskrit laws, showing their common Indo-European base. Not saying their culture is the same, of course there is regional differences as there is with all peoples we refer to modernly, Romans, Greeks, Germans etc. Even if you watch that link in a previous post, from 'the Story of Ireland' it has an interview with director of the national museum and he refers to the irish as being celtic culturally long as I remember but not genetically. As for burials well the bog bodies found show remarkable similar sacrificial rituals to the bog bodies found in germany, netherlands, denmark and britain. The normal burials well again this points to regional differences.


  • Options
    #77
    Ozymandiaz
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Ozymandiaz


    And that is your view.
    Obviously.
    My view is that there are other ways for a language to change.
    I know. But in the case of language change in ancient Ireland I don’t agree with your dogmatic suggestion that it happened solely through 'trade' contacts and had nothing to do with invasion or an influx of new people or a new elite.
    Linguists actually study these things, the process is known as language shift, and it does not only happen due to invasions or migrations.
    ’Language shift’ - why do you need to keep stating the obvious? I never generalized and said that language shift only occurred by invasion. We are talking about ancient Ireland and of a population isolated on an island on the extremity of Europe not a population on the Continent subject to substantial close, continuous and ever-present daily contact with a body of speakers of a more influential language. Of all the societies of Europe, without exception, Ireland was possibly the most isolated and therefore the most conservative. To have effected language shift through trade alone would be quite remarkable.
    They mean there was no invasion, by anybody. The "anybody" part includes those who spoke Cletic languages at the time.
    They do not categorically state that there were no invasions. What they actaully say is quite different: they say that they have no 'archaeological evidence' for an invasion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And they make no claims about language. They can’t. Any statement offered by archaeologists regarding language is speculation and nothing else. I have to repeat myself: except in very rare circumstances archaeology can say nothing about the language of people who made, used or traded the artifacts it unearths.
    With regards to Britain, again there was no invasion, nor large migration. In the south-east there was clear and obvious movement to and from Europe, but as you move north and west there is less and less. By the time you reach Wales and north west England, there is, once again, no evidence of anyone from Europe invading at the time.
    Then you have to explain the following:-
    - The Belgae are known from the Netherlands and Belgium but they also occupied a swathe of territory in Britain from the Isle of Wight north-west to the Bristol Channel. In Ireland they are known as the Fir Bolg or Bolgraige where the ‘–raige’ part is cognate with Latin ‘reges’, a kingdom.

    - The Parisii in the neighbourhood of Paris and in the Humber region of England.

    - The Menapii (a P-Celtic spelling) were to be found in southern Holland and in Yorkshire, England. In Ireland they were known as the Fir Manach (a Q-Celtic spelling). They gave their name to the modern Irish county of Fermanagh. Fir Manach means ‘the Manachian Men’ or ‘Menapian Men’ (Fir = men in Irtish Gaelic).

    - The Brigantes were settled in northern Britain but Ptolemy locates them also in south-eastern Ireland.

    - The Pictones were found in Loire region of France and in Scotland.

    - The Semnones occupied territory between the Elbe and the Oder and may also be the same people as the Tuath Semon (or Semonraige) of Ireland. ‘Tuath’ means ‘territory of’ and ‘-raige’ means kingdom.

    - The Veneti of Normandy may be cognate with the Uaithne of Ireland (Ptolemy’s Autini).

    - The Dobunni of southwest England are found in Ireland as the Corco Duibne.

    - The Hiberi of north-western Spain are attested in the south-west of Ireland under the name Iverni (hence, Hibernia). In turn, these may be the same as the Arverni who were located in the Auvergne Mountains in south central France.

    - The Laigin in Leinster and the Lleyn Peninsula in Wales The evidence of Ogham stone distribution.

    And I have already alluded to the Helvetii wanting to relocate from Switzerland to the Atlantic coast of France. Angles and Saxons crossed the north sea into Britain; Britons crossed and settled in Britanny. Tacitus considered the Caledonii to be of German origin and the Silures to be from northern Spain. Migration was a fact in the ancient world. There is also the evidence of the written record in Ireland, Britain and the Continent regarding the movement of peoples. In the case of Ireland there is irrefutable evidence of migration across the north Irish Sea between Ireland and Scotland, and across the south Irish Sea between Wales and southern and eastern Ireland.

    These are the migrations we know about because they are relatively recent and just about come under the spotlight of written history. It is foolhardy to think that outside that spotlight there were no migrations.

    No linguist will support your argument. In modern times I can think of two examples that show you to be wrong. Brussels has become a French speaking area, … Also, right now, in Malta, English and Italian are endangering Maltese. It is not as a result of invasion or immigration, it is because the young people there now are all more or less bilingual (or even trilingual), and as a result, they are dropping Maltese from their everyday use.
    You cannot use modern examples like these as a template for language change in the ancient world or as examples of what happened in Ireland back then. There is no correspondence between the two. Malta was a small and strategically important military base that became a pawn in empire building and international politics. The Italians conquered it, as did the French, as did the English. No surprise then that Maltese is under threat! And little Belgium is surrounded by bigger, more powerful neighbours with no natural boundaries to keep her culturally or linguistically separate. She’s been invaded by them all. There is no natural dam to keep the flood out.

    I would cite the Lebor Gabala (as one of many early Irish texts) as indirect evidence of prehistoric invasion into Ireland. Why would such a document need to be written if over the period of 800 years language shift is complete and all are singing off the same hymn sheet? The fact that such a book was written is indicative that early medieval Irish society knew there were different peoples and languages in the country. There was no lingua franca based on ‘trade’ that everyone knew, or that was used by those people who mattered in society. There is literary evidence that there were words and dialects in Ireland which were not understood by everybody.
    I'm referring to the language of the Partraige people from western Ireland.
    What language is that? This is the most interesting thing you have said to date. I have to admit not knowing anything about the language of the Partraige and would appreciate more information.


  • Options
    #78
    subedei
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭subedei


    Ozymandiaz wrote: »
    We are talking about ancient Ireland and of a population isolated on an island on the extremity of Europe not a population on the Continent subject to substantial close, continuous and ever-present daily contact with a body of speakers of a more influential language. Of all the societies of Europe, without exception, Ireland was possibly the most isolated and therefore the most conservative.

    Actually if u watched the above post 'The story of ireland' on RTE, the archaeological experts state that ireland was not isolated at all in the pre-historic period, in fact ireland being surrounded by water was an advantage as travel by boat was much faster than by land.
    In Ireland they are known as the Fir Bolg or Bolgraige where the ‘–raige’ part is cognate with Latin ‘reges’, a kingdom.

    I have heard some people suggest this but this is pure speculation, fir bolg means stomach people and is a myth, if one is going to start making such leaps then one should start believing that perhaps we are lost tribe of israel, there may be an element of truth in it, but then it is also possible that these invasions refer to much earlier periods of history, like the bronze age.
    - The Menapii (a P-Celtic spelling) were to be found in southern Holland and in Yorkshire, England. In Ireland they were known as the Fir Manach (a Q-Celtic spelling). They gave their name to the modern Irish county of Fermanagh. Fir Manach means ‘the Manachian Men’ or ‘Menapian Men’ (Fir = men in Irtish Gaelic).

    - The Brigantes were settled in northern Britain but Ptolemy locates them also in south-eastern Ireland.

    - The Semnones occupied territory between the Elbe and the Oder and may also be the same people as the Tuath Semon (or Semonraige) of Ireland. ‘Tuath’ means ‘territory of’ and ‘-raige’ means kingdom.

    - The Veneti of Normandy may be cognate with the Uaithne of Ireland (Ptolemy’s Autini).

    - The Dobunni of southwest England are found in Ireland as the Corco Duibne.

    - The Hiberi of north-western Spain are attested in the south-west of Ireland under the name Iverni (hence, Hibernia). In turn, these may be the same as the Arverni who were located in the Auvergne Mountains in south central France.

    - The Laigin in Leinster and the Lleyn Peninsula in Wales The evidence of Ogham stone distribution.

    This is again pure speculation, possible but highly unlikely, the first problem with Ptolemys map is that it is in P Celtic ie british celtic, not Q celtic, so means that it must have been derived from perhaps British sailors, so outsiders looking in and perhaps associating irish names with something similar in british. Also it could go the other way too, this does not necessarily mean that the tribes that are in Britain came from Britain, these could have been invasions from Ireland also. As for Ogham and the Laigin that is early medieval and it was certainly an invasion from ireland not an invasion into ireland.

    In the case of Ireland there is irrefutable evidence of migration across the north Irish Sea between Ireland and Scotland, and across the south Irish Sea between Wales and southern and eastern Ireland.These are the migrations we know about because they are relatively recent and just about come under the spotlight of written history. It is foolhardy to think that outside that spotlight there were no migrations.

    This is early medieval and some scottish historians are now starting to refute this. As for the ealier sources, there is evidence archaeologically of these movements on the continent but not in Ireland. One also has to remember that population levels were much lower in the ancient times than later times, and even with such movements as the anglo saxons they are not sure anymore whether it was a movement of people or just a small elite like the later Norman invasion.
    They do not categorically state that there were no invasions. What they actaully say is quite different: they say that they have no 'archaeological evidence' for an invasion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

    They do actually say that archaeology shows that there was no invasions, and that archaeological evidence does not support it, all one has to read is Barry Rafterys work to know that, who was the expert in the field of iron age archaeology in Ireland. Again watch the former post about 'The story of Ireland' on RTE player to see that experts do believe this. Archaeology has been around a long time at this stage and if it has not found something yet, like they have found in europe, then it is unlikely it is going to show up. Outside of archaeology all you have is scraps of text, some part myth like Lebor Gabala, and some names on a ancient map which could have been mistakes or associations with already known names than exact truth. One has to remember about archaeology that new technology does not mean new people, just like now, just because I have a computer and a television does not mean I was invaded, to say that is only because we are in the modern world is a bit contradictive of the available archaeological evidence that shows that the ancient world was much more connected than we previously gave them credit for.
    I would cite the Lebor Gabala (as one of many early Irish texts) as indirect evidence of prehistoric invasion into Ireland. Why would such a document need to be written if over the period of 800 years language shift is complete and all are singing off the same hymn sheet? The fact that such a book was written is indicative that early medieval Irish society knew there were different peoples and languages in the country.

    This is a good point but also shows that the irish had a believe atleast that they were of multicultural backgrounds, showing how much they traded with the world at that time to accept that. I suppose evidence could be construed either way, there is enough to say there was no invasion but one could if one relays solely on literary evidence say that there was an invasion too.


Advertisement