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 "First" Irish people

2456710

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,592 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    mikhail wrote: »
    I'm just curious. Archaeology can be tricky - one often has to interpolate a lot from scraps. In the absence of an example of a people voluntarily abandoning their native tongue for a trade language without significant immigration (even in this era of mass education and media, the Dutch and the Swedish retain their own languages in spite of extremely high levels of English literacy), the claim that the native Irish did so is a big one. I doubt archaeologists are arguing in a vacuum; do you know of a neat summary of the argument anywhere?

    What about current Gaeilge? In the last 200 hundred years its usage has declined dramatically


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    MarchDub wrote: »
    You made me smile. There is much heated discussion in academia about all this. Many think as you do - archeological evidence be damned, there had to be some people who came. The jury is out on it.

    Why would a massive group of people go the whole way to Ireland, apart form arceological evidence that would have to be found in ireland, would it have to be found the whole way along the invasion route?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    fontanalis wrote: »
    The Norman/English invasion more or less achieved it in Ireland. There is no trace of Pictish in Scotland either.
    The Normans spoke French, and invaded in the 12th century. The Irish retained their language until at least the mid 19th century before it gave way to English, a language taught in schools and used in the civil service of the government imposed by the ruling nation. Are you implying that some Celts ran Ireland, teaching their language in a reasonably structured way and held power for centuries, but left no archaeological evidence of an invasion?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,592 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Why would a massive group of people go the whole way to Ireland, apart form arceological evidence that would have to be found in ireland, would it have to be found the whole way along the invasion route?

    Well it was a time of massed immigration, if you trust Caesars account of things there were huge tribes constantly on the move, does anyone know if there is archaeological evidence of these movements?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    Ptolemys map of Ireland puts the Brigantes in Wexford in the second century AD and they were pretty well known in England, the Cartimandua story.

    The Barony of Bargy in coastal south Wexford takes it's name from the Brigantes.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    fontanalis wrote: »
    The Norman/English invasion more or less achieved it in Ireland. There is no trace of Pictish in Scotland either.
    Below is a list of extinct European languages.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_languages_of_Europe


    Due to local inhabitants being forcefully made NOT speak it.

    Contrary to Mikhails post, the countries he mentioned were never forced to abandon their language. Having a high level of literacy of one language doe not eradicate the native tongue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    mikhail wrote: »
    The Normans spoke French, and invaded in the 12th century. The Irish retained their language until at least the mid 19th century before it gave way to English, a language taught in schools and used in the civil service of the government imposed by the ruling nation. Are you implying that some Celts ran Ireland, teaching their language in a reasonably structured way and held power for centuries, but left no archaeological evidence of an invasion?

    Just showing in recent times how a language could die out.
    Gaelic as it is now is probably very different than it was 1,000 years ago; Gaelic of the 12th century was probably different than of the 1st century. Who knows maybe Gaelic incorporated some of the old language (whatever it was) into it. If trading increased perhaps adoption of a new langauge may have been necessary. On the other side of the spectrum it seems the Basque langauge held on for a very long time.
    Personally I think there was some movement of people (ruling elite), and we don't know what the population of Ireland was at the time, do we have an idea of how the land was ruled, was the country even unified?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Why would a massive group of people go the whole way to Ireland, apart form arceological evidence that would have to be found in ireland, would it have to be found the whole way along the invasion route?

    Oh I wasn't talking about myself - I accept the complete lack of archeological evidence for migration. There was no 'Celtic' invasion of peoples into Ireland.

    And there is no evidence that the so called speakers of 'Celtic' languages were ever a homogeneous ethnic group anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Oh I wasn't talking about myself - I accept the complete lack of archeological evidence for migration. There was no 'Celtic' invasion of peoples into Ireland.

    And there is no evidence that the so called speakers of 'Celtic' languages were ever a homogeneous ethnic group anyway.

    Sorry, wasn't really directed at you.
    Anyway isn't a major danger in all of this is that we are applying modern labels to an ancient group/groups of people we don't know an awful lot about?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Just showing in recent times how a language could die out.
    Gaelic as it is now is probably very different than it was 1,000 years ago; Gaelic of the 12th century was probably different than of the 1st century. Who knows maybe Gaelic incorporated some of the old language (whatever it was) into it. If trading increased perhaps adoption of a new langauge may have been necessary. On the other side of the spectrum it seems the Basque langauge held on for a very long time.
    Personally I think there was some movement of people (ruling elite), and we don't know what the population of Ireland was at the time, do we have an idea of how the land was ruled, was the country even unified?
    Unionist historians have portrayed pre Norman Ireland as island of tribal chaos to try and undermine the Irish sense of nationalhood ( and this coming from the people who invent Scots Ulster 'language' and some even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !! ), i.e so therefore it took the invaders to put order on the muck savage Irish. It suits their supremacist mindset. And of course this propaganda has been echoed by the usual suspects, Harris, Edwards etc down in the Gombeen state.

    fontanalis, never hear of the Brehon Laws, Ard Ri etc ? ( BTW Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair / Rory O'Connor was the last High King of Ireland 1166–1198 )


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,592 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Unionist historians have portrayed pre Norman Ireland as island of tribal chaos to try and undermine the Irish sense of nationalhood ( and this coming from the people who invent Scots Ulster 'language' and some even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !! ), i.e so therefore it took the invaders to put order on the muck savage Irish. It suits their supremacist mindset. And of course this propaganda has been echoed by the usual suspects, Harris, Edwards etc down in the Gombeen state.

    fontanalis, never hear of the Brehon Laws, Ard Ri etc ? ( BTW Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair / Rory O'Connor was the last High King of Ireland 1166–1198 )

    If you read the Annals of the Four Masters it seems pretty clear that Ireland was in so sense united in pre-Norman times and weren't they written by Franciscan monks?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    People are talking here as if a single pre-Celtic language was spoken in Ireland and then replaced over a short period of time by Irish. That is not the case, or at least, there is no evidence of it happening. It is assumed that the Celtic language arrived around 400BC simply because that is about the time we date the earliest signs of La Tene influence on artifacts here. The language could have started to arrive long before, or long after. There is no evidence that it replaced the original language(s) over a short period of time either. In fact, I recall there being some circumstantial evidence that a non- Q-Celtic language was still being spoken up until at least the 5th century AD. And finally, there is no evidence to show how many languages were spoken prior to the arrival of the Celtic language. There may have been as many languages as there were Tuatha! That would help explain why the Celtic language ended up being the main one, not only was it needed to communicate with trade partners in Europe, but also to communicate with other Tuatha. As the Tuatha became closer to the extent that the idea of a High King of Ireland began being seriously discussed, the need to speak the same language would have become more important, even to those further down the food chain from the leaders of the various kin groups.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    fontanalis, never hear of the Brehon Laws, Ard Ri etc ? ( BTW Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair / Rory O'Connor was the last High King of Ireland 1166–1198 )
    There was never a true High King of Ireland. The closest anyone came was to be proclaimed a High King with opposition. Maybe having power over 4 of the 5 provinces that existed at the time. It was heading towards it, at the time of the Norman invasion there were probably only about 6-8 Tuatha that were competing for the title.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Ireland was unified culturally prior to the Anglo-Norman invasion. There was one language, one set of laws, one religion. There was no feudal system - so in that sense it differed from other parts of Europe.

    Patsy - I agree with you re the propaganda about the condition that Ireland was in prior to the invasion from Henry II. In fact, the propaganda began with the invasion as Giraldus Cambrensis was the first one to write about this - he came with the invaders with the intention of justifying the invasion and putting it on record that Ireland was barbarous, pagan and disorganised.

    It is the work of Giraldus - who right from the start was in disagreement/dispute with the Irish sources - that many use to discredit pre Norman Ireland.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Johnmb wrote: »
    There was never a true High King of Ireland. The closest anyone came was to be proclaimed a High King with opposition. Maybe having power over 4 of the 5 provinces that existed at the time. It was heading towards it, at the time of the Norman invasion there were probably only about 6-8 Tuatha that were competing for the title.

    You are wrong about the "High King with Opposition" that was a designation under Brehon Law to denote a dispute but it was not the norm.

    Brian Boru was proclaimed High King and even Emperor of the Irish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    MarchDub wrote: »
    You are wrong about the "High King with Opposition" that was a designation under Brehon Law to denote a dispute but it was not the norm.

    Brian Boru was proclaimed High King and even Emperor of the Irish.
    He proclaimed himself that. He never conquered the northern Ui Neill, nor the Ulaid if I remember correctly. There was no such official designation of High King with opposition, that was just what those writing the various annals called them in order to show that 1) the king in question didn't actually control everyone, 2) they didn't feel they had to go overboard in their sucking up to him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    Unionist historians have portrayed pre Norman Ireland as island of tribal chaos to try and undermine the Irish sense of nationalhood ( and this coming from the people who invent Scots Ulster 'language' and some even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !! ), i.e so therefore it took the invaders to put order on the muck savage Irish. It suits their supremacist mindset. And of course this propaganda has been echoed by the usual suspects, Harris, Edwards etc down in the Gombeen state.

    fontanalis, never hear of the Brehon Laws, Ard Ri etc ? ( BTW Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair / Rory O'Connor was the last High King of Ireland 1166–1198 )

    I wasn't suggesting the place was like Mad Max 2 but just not a unified monolithic block around the iron age.
    I can't remember where I read it but some author suggested stories like The Tain may be based around massive inter provincial/kingdom rivalry.
    Pedant alert, was it Roderick O'Connor not Rory O'Connor?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Johnmb wrote: »
    He proclaimed himself that. He never conquered the northern Ui Neill, nor the Ulaid if I remember correctly. There was no such official designation of High King with opposition, that was just what those writing the various annals called them in order to show that 1) the king in question didn't actually control everyone, 2) they didn't feel they had to go overboard in their sucking up to him.

    He was proclaimed that at Armagh - Brehon law oversaw the rulers. It was against Brehon law to take by force the territory of another - so if there was a dispute the Brehon in charge would declare 'the opposition' and it would be thus recorded.

    But yes you are right, Irish rulers - no matter what title - did not have the power that their continental equivalents had. And there was no primogenitor - so that made for a weaker role also. This difference was one of the major cultural differences when the English invaded. The English King did not easily control the whole country. There was no system of cowering down - and paying taxes - to a central ruler in Ireland the way the English did.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Johnmb wrote: »
    He proclaimed himself that. He never conquered the northern Ui Neill, nor the Ulaid if I remember correctly. There was no such official designation of High King with opposition, that was just what those writing the various annals called them in order to show that 1) the king in question didn't actually control everyone, 2) they didn't feel they had to go overboard in their sucking up to him.
    It wasn't just Ireland where ancient Kings ruled with "opposition" i.e. other country's had a rebelious baron or lord in a distant part of the kingdom. For example England's King Edward the Confessor feared the powerful nobleman Harold Godwinson Earl of Wessex ( later Harold II of England ) and requested his wife's cousin William the Conqueror to send Knights to act as his sort of private guard against Harold. This was later used by Willaim the Conqueror as an excuse for claiming the English throne claiming he was promised it by Edward.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    MarchDub wrote: »
    He was proclaimed that at Armagh - Brehon law oversaw the rulers. It was against Brehon law to take by force the territory of another - so if there was a dispute the Brehon in charge would declare 'the opposition' and it would be thus recorded.
    Where exactly do you get this information from? There is no single "Brehon law", there are a number of law texts that are grouped together under the term Brehon law. The highest rank of King generally mentioned in any of them is that of the provincial High King. While a High Kingship of Ireland was mentioned quite a bit in the myths and legends, it is not mentioned as even a theoretical position in most of the law texts.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Johnmb wrote: »
    Where exactly do you get this information from? There is no single "Brehon law", there are a number of law texts that are grouped together under the term Brehon law. The highest rank of King generally mentioned in any of them is that of the provincial High King. While a High Kingship of Ireland was mentioned quite a bit in the myths and legends, it is not mentioned as even a theoretical position in most of the law texts.

    Yes, I understand the nature of Brehon Law.

    To answer your question - According to Fergus Kelly the Miadslechta text refers to a king of all Ireland. But Kelly does also point out that in reality there was a High Kingship from the seventh century.

    But understand that I am not suggesting that there was a powerful central kingship such as there was in Europe. There was not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    MarchDub wrote: »
    To answer your question - According to Fergus Kelly the Miadslechta text refers to a king of all Ireland. But Kelly does also point out that in reality there was a High Kingship from the seventh century.
    Actually, to quote Kelly:
    "The king of Ireland (rí Érenn), who figures so prominently in the sagas, is rarely mentioned in the law-texts. Though the idea of a kingship of the whole island had already gained currency by the 7th century, no Irish king ever managed to make it a reality, and most law-texts do not even provide for such a possibility."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Johnmb wrote: »
    Actually, to quote Kelly:
    "The king of Ireland (rí Érenn), who figures so prominently in the sagas, is rarely mentioned in the law-texts. Though the idea of a kingship of the whole island had already gained currency by the 7th century, no Irish king ever managed to make it a reality, and most law-texts do not even provide for such a possibility."

    Yes, I found that reference in his book all right - his other reference to the text that does mention an over-kingship it is in the footnote at the bottom of the page. "Most" not being all.

    I searched further - - and see what I was thinking of in Francis John Byrne's Irish kings and High Kings.

    "The Ui Neill concept of High Kingship was first converted into political reality by Maelsechnaill mac Maele Ruanaid styled Ri Erenn uile 'King of All Ireland' at his obit in 862".

    Of course we could also discuss what the "reality" meant in terms of a high kingship. Doesn't Kelly really mean it in terms of a Feudal style and as such this never became the reality? That's how I read him anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    Byrne seems to make it pretty clear that the Ui Neill claims were just claims. They were the most powerful kings for a while, but never held sway over the whole of Ireland, and those annals which claimed them as High Kings of Ireland were often written by their relatives. But getting back to an earlier statement about Brian Boru,
    He was proclaimed that at Armagh - Brehon law oversaw the rulers. It was against Brehon law to take by force the territory of another - so if there was a dispute the Brehon in charge would declare 'the opposition' and it would be thus recorded.
    Where does this information come from?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Well the first Irish settlers would have been around 8000 odd years ago from the evidence at the moment(personally I suspect they were here before and indeed Neanderthal before them, but the ice ages buggered up our evidence). Then it seems some group came along and brought among the earliest examples of boundary farming in europe. Well the preserved ones anyway(in Achill IIRC).

    No doubt there was cross pollination between us and Britain, back and forth for the intervening years. EG we share much of our DNA with the UK as a whole and gave our old name to Scotland. Indeed they have Scottish "gaelic" as a minority language today, because the Irish invaded them culturally. They're really speaking an Irish dialect. The Gaelic thing IIRC was a roman invention or description. I gather it comes from the welsh root word for raider/slaver, it's not whoever was here at the time would have described themselves.

    The Celtic thing is it seems a cultural invasion as european celtic genes are very thin on the ground here(none basically). There may well have been a physical presence, but it seems to have bred out. As has most of the viking/norman DNA. The "english" DNA is so close to ours its a hard call anyway. The whole Celtic notion is as much a 19th century romantic ideal on the back of spurious "discoveries" of Oisin's poems and actual discoveries in Europe that gave the romantic types a hard on. It's gonna be way more complex than that.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    Celtic in what sense? Do you have a link out of interest?
    Essentially the Irish language is a descendant of a language called Proto-Celtic from which Gaulish, Celtiberian and Brythonic also evolved. This language group is called Celtic because it was spoken mostly by Celtic peoples who lived in the area spanning from Western Austria to Northern France.

    Ironically, the British Isles, the last region to now possess Celtic languages speak a highly unusual type of Celtic called Insular-Celtic. Welsh and Irish are very different to Gaulish for example. Gaulish was much more like Latin. To take an example I used in other thread:

    English: He has given to the mothers of Nîmes
    Gaulish: Dede matrebo Namausikabo
    Latin: Dedit matribus Nemausicabus

    English: Pretty girl, give some ale
    Gaulish: Nata vimpi curmi da
    Latin: Nata bella cervisiam da

    There are several features in Irish and Welsh that exist in no other Celtic or even Indo-European language. Why the language mutated so much on arriving to the British Isles is unknown.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    Enkidu wrote: »
    Essentially the Irish language is a descendant of a language called Proto-Celtic from which Gaulish, Celtiberian and Brythonic also evolved. This language group is called Celtic because it was spoken mostly by Celtic peoples who lived in the area spanning from Western Austria to Northern France.

    Ironically, the British Isles, the last region to now possess Celtic languages speak a highly unusual type of Celtic called Insular-Celtic. Welsh and Irish are very different to Gaulish for example. Gaulish was much more like Latin. To take an example I used in other thread:

    English: He has given to the mothers of Nîmes
    Gaulish: Dede matrebo Namausikabo
    Latin: Dedit matribus Nemausicabus

    English: Pretty girl, give some ale
    Gaulish: Nata vimpi curmi da
    Latin: Nata bella cervisiam da

    There are several features in Irish and Welsh that exist in no other Celtic or even Indo-European language. Why the language mutated so much on arriving to the British Isles is unknown.


    Are there many similarites?
    The reason I ask is based on two place names. Dover whichis suppsoed to be based on a Brythonic word for water and Gweedore, where the Dore part comes from an old irish word for water.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Enkidu wrote: »
    There are several features in Irish and Welsh that exist in no other Celtic or even Indo-European language. Why the language mutated so much on arriving to the British Isles is unknown.
    The other way to look at it, is that it didn't mutate as such, but merely added to one degree or other the local language? Hence the insular features?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    Wibbs wrote: »

    The Celtic thing is it seems a cultural invasion as european celtic genes are very thin on the ground here.

    So where is this Celtic European DNA present nowadays so we can take exact samples to compare with Ireland's modern day population??? I doubt if you could even extract pure Slavic or Germanic DNA anywhere either.

    All the lands that were originally Celtic have been invaded & settled by many other people's since the fall of the Roman Empire including Ireland.

    The modern population of Ireland, particularly the East coast has significant Germanic blood. The West of Ireland also has many surnames that are not originally Gaelic.

    Vikings, Saxon's, Normans, Fleming's English, Dutch, German's & Scots & Welsh, even the later two could some Germanic blood before their arrival in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    So where is this Celtic European DNA present nowadays so we can take exact samples to compare with Ireland's modern day population??? I doubt if you could even extract pure Slavic or Germanic DNA anywhere either.

    All the lands that were originally Celtic have been invaded & settled by many other people's since the fall of the Roman Empire including Ireland.

    The modern population of Ireland, particularly the East coast has significant Germanic blood. The West of Ireland also has many surnames that are not originally Gaelic.

    Vikings, Saxon's, Normans, Fleming's English, Dutch, German's & Scots & Welsh, even the later two could some Germanic blood before their arrival in Ireland.

    It's not a case of pure, people will still carry old markers.
    Again we are applying a modern label to wide groups of people who may not even have called themselves that name.


Advertisement