The Ancient Irish: Celts, Gaels; or just Irish

fontanalis · 04-08-2010 2:02pm #1

MarchDub wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

MarchDub · 04-08-2010 3:19pm

fontanalis wrote: »

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

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

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

fontanalis · 04-08-2010 3:48pm

MarchDub wrote: »

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

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

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

Johnmb · 04-08-2010 5:06pm

fontanalis wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

fontanalis · 04-08-2010 10:35pm

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

Denerick · 05-08-2010 4:21pm

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

fontanalis · 05-08-2010 4:32pm

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

InTheTrees · 05-08-2010 6:21pm

fontanalis wrote: »

I suppose I'm asking an unanswerable question;

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

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

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

MarchDub · 05-08-2010 10:33pm

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

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

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

Fuinseog · 05-08-2010 11:04pm

the sons of Mil

fontanalis · 06-08-2010 12:45am

InTheTrees wrote: »

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

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

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

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

pablomakaveli · 06-08-2010 10:02am

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

losthorizon · 06-08-2010 10:07am

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

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

Denerick · 06-08-2010 10:08am

losthorizon wrote: »

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

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

Raedwald · 06-08-2010 12:20pm

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

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

fontanalis · 06-08-2010 2:13pm

losthorizon wrote: »

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

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

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

nnr · 06-08-2010 3:39pm

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

sickpuppy32 · 08-08-2010 2:42am

fontanalis wrote: »

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

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

alhimself · 27-08-2010 4:28am

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

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

Mervyn Crawford · 09-01-2011 11:40am

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

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

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

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

GhostInTheRuins · 11-01-2011 12:18am

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

Johnmb · 11-01-2011 11:51am

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

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

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

dubhthach · 24-01-2011 9:13pm

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

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

Feckin_Eejit · 26-01-2011 9:45pm

Raedwald wrote: »

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

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

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

Feckin_Eejit · 26-01-2011 9:55pm

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

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

What do you mean?

Johnmb · 26-01-2011 10:31pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

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

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

Feckin_Eejit · 28-01-2011 12:47am

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

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

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

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

Johnmb · 28-01-2011 1:27pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

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

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

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

Feckin_Eejit · 28-01-2011 4:07pm

Johnmb, you say

Johnmb wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Johnmb · 28-01-2011 6:05pm

Feckin_Eejit wrote: »

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

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

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

Feckin_Eejit · 28-01-2011 8:28pm

Johnmb wrote: »

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

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

The Ancient Irish: Celts, Gaels; or just Irish

Comments