The Irish are Not Celts

[-Praetor-]

It also involves doing what the Spanish did in the Latin America: kill the men, rape the women.

Comparing the spanish conquest of south america with a mass genocide is hardly a good historical analysis technique. That would ignore the chapters of the intervention of the church, the leyes de indias and most of the regulatory normative that arose after the spanish conquest of America. There was killing, as in any conquest, but not genocide, and the interpretation you are proposing is a caricaturized perspective of the spanish conquest, more according to the colonization process of North America.

This:

Also the Spanish didn’t directly kill millions of potentially loyal and income producing Mexica, Mixtec, Maya, Tlaxcalan, Zapotec, Tlaxcalans, and of course Tarascan subjects. For the most part it was Variola vera that did the lion's share of the killing.

is a more accurate description to what happened.

Well the most of population of latin american have not spanish ancestors.

What?

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

It was so deserted that the mapuche people continued to fight against the spanish conqueror from the time of their arrival into Chile until they departed after the South American independence, resulting into an effectively unconquerable people. The mapuche were only assimilated into the Chilean state on 1881, 63 years after the declaration of independence of Chile. At the time of their assimilation, they numbered around 500.000 people, and at the time of the spanish arrival, around 1 million. And yes, south of Chile was deserted.

What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

The inca empire never got as far as southern Chile. There were other peoples here, namely the araucanos or mapuches.

I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

A large part of Argentina is pampa, a large steppe (52% of total surface) fit only for cattle and hydrocarbon exploitation. And another large part is Andine mountains. Most of the fertile land lies to the northeast.

correct me if I am wrong. Isn't Argentina covered in thick jungle and quite mountainous. kinda like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

Yup, you're wrong.

[Sumskilz]

Berg-i-dum,

The estimates on the percentage of Native population whipped out vary greatly, the highest being about 90%. This was by disease primarily, not genocide. The genetic evidence matches the historical records fairly well. The vast majority of Latin America is mixed not Native as you assert. In the study I posted which looked at the genetic makeup of northwest Columbia, 94% of the Y chromosome lineages were of European origin, 5% African, and only 1% Native American where as the mtDNA lineages were 90% Native American, 8% African and only 2% European. It appears that the reason Native genetics were not nearly wiped out is because Spanish men took Native wives.

This is not all Black Legend nonsense; don’t think the whole English speaking world believes in all that.

[Berg-i-dum]

What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

Seriously, I'd like to see something. I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

The Inca Empire almost didnt extend across the south of Chile nor Argentina. Well they occupied some really little areas of the NW extreme of Argentina and a big area of north Chile but it wasnt for a long time nor a populated area in that time.

The south extreme of South America wasnt almost populated before the came of the europeans. Dont know exactly why. May be it was the bad wheater, long distances,... The Argentine Pampa and Tierra del Fuego havent almost trees or so, there are deserted prairies. Those prairies are fertile if you have cows and so, ...but there wasnt cows before europeans. And no, it isnt like Vietnam or Amazonas ,it isnt mountainous, it is a big plateau.

[Berg-i-dum]

Comparing the spanish conquest of south america with a mass genocide is hardly a good historical analysis technique. That would ignore the chapters of the intervention of the church, the leyes de indias and most of the regulatory normative that arose after the spanish conquest of America. There was killing, as in any conquest, but not genocide, and the interpretation you are proposing is a caricaturized perspective of the spanish conquest, more according to the colonization process of North America.



It was so deserted that the mapuche people continued to fight against the spanish conqueror from the time of their arrival into Chile until they departed after the South American independence, resulting into an effectively unconquerable people. The mapuche were only assimilated into the Chilean state on 1881, 63 years after the declaration of independence of Chile. At the time of their assimilation, they numbered around 500.000 people, and at the time of the spanish arrival, around 1 million. And yes, south of Chile was deserted.

[/URL]

I am absolutely agree with the first paragraph.

About the second, yeah Chile it wasnt a desert like Pampa but well you will be agree in that it wasnt really so big populated as Mexico or Venezuela, Colombia.

Berg-i-dum,

The estimates on the percentage of Native population whipped out vary greatly, the highest being about 90%. This was by disease primarily, not genocide. The genetic evidence matches the historical records fairly well. The vast majority of Latin America is mixed not Native as you assert. In the study I posted which looked at the genetic makeup of northwest Columbia, 94% of the Y chromosome lineages were of European origin, 5% African, and only 1% Native American where as the mtDNA lineages were 90% Native American, 8% African and only 2% European. It appears that the reason Native genetics were not nearly wiped out is because Spanish men took Native wives.

This is not all Black Legend nonsense; don’t think the whole English speaking world believes in all that.

Your study is about a reduced area of Colombia heavily colonized by spaniards. This dont explain nothing in general. The vast majority of latin america is native in the most of Latin America, you can go there and check it. No study is neccesary, just kidding hehe. The principal reason is that spaniards nor diseases didnt kill the most of population and the colonizers were a really bit porcentage of population that came across the ocean, Spain was a really little country to manage and to make a so big influence in latin america population much more bigger than spanish one...

A so big and really epic disease would be came to History some time ago nor in the current decades. And i have read other studies appart from Black Legend stories that speak about harmful and big diseases but for God shake, not the 90%.

[Sumskilz]

There was another study led by Dr. Andres Ruiz-Linares that studied 13 populations across Latin America from Chile to Mexico that found very similar results as the study I posted, except that there was a bit higher percentage of native genes in the Andes and Central Mexico where the Native populations had been higher prior to contact. It also showed that a small number of male lineages contributed a lot of DNA which fits with the idea of there having been very few Spanish colonists. There exists primary source documentation for about 55,000 individuals emmigrating from Spain to Latin America prior to 1600. The people that look native to you mostly carry European genetics. They are mixed. I agree with you that most of Latin America is native except that they are also of European ancestry. Very few individuals in Latin America even identify themselves as native, they usually call themselves Mestizo.

I don’t know if I buy the 90% figure either, but it’s thrown around a lot by scholars on the subject. It seems very difficult to estimate such a thing.

I don’t think this is really relevant to EB anymore though.

[cmacq]

A so big and really epic disease would be came to History some time ago nor in the current decades. And i have read other studies appart from Black Legend stories that speak about harmful and big diseases but for God shake, not the 90%.

I'm not real sure I've ever run across any of these Black Legend stories? However, in the American Southwest population levels do seem to have decreased about 80% in some areas and even more in others. I fact, large regions appear to have been effectively abandoned. Interrestingly, this demographic drop was not associated with the arrivial of the Iberians. In a pan-regional sense, the initial phase of depopulation occurred between AD 1150-1165 and again from 1275 to 1300. As in the case of the Fremont Culture, Virgin Anasazi, and the first abandonment of Chaco in the second half of the 12th century AD. Then in the late 13th century another set of regions were all but abandoned, for example the Mesa Verde, the San Juan, and for the second time the McAlmo phase Chaco.

In the Tonto-Lower Verde area, which I'm most familiar with, the Roosevelt Phase cultural florescence was cut short and the population dropped by more than 80%. Between AD 1300 and roughly 1350 there was somewhat of a recovery, however population remained less that a quarter of the 13th century levels. After AD 1350 the bottom seems to have dropped out and with the exception of the consolidated proto-Hopi and proto-Zuni all of Arizona and New Mexico were abandoned between the Colorado and Rio Grande, north of Tucson possibly as early as AD 1400. Right there were several O'odham remnents, but these were very small, and it wasn't long before the various Pai affiliates trikled into the vacoum. Still, these were but a very small fraction of what the 13th century population levels had been.

Now the first Spanish expedition to the Caribbean arrived, in what, 1492? Now, my math skills aren’t that good, but I seem to always come up with a difference of about 100 years. Strange, every two or three years or so, another energetic young archaeologist new to the area seems to want to make a difference and send that 100 years to the Cornfield. The reason they want to whittle these years away is because if they can make the period of mass abandonment appear to have occured a century later, and match it with first contact, then they'll have a causality for said abandonments; European induced disease. Think jamming a square peg into a round hole; to the untrained eye it may look feasible, problem is, it doesn't fit, 'period!'

In other words they want whys, and in contrast, I ask why not; Or they say tomato, I say potato, or better yet, tater-tot. This is because I seem to remember somewhere reading about, the dendro-based paleo-climatic reconstructions which demonstrate two significant periods of extended drought within this time frame; the first occurred in the middle 12th century (AD 1150-1165) and the second much more sever, between AD 1275 and 1295. Actually, this is why we know the abandonment dates of an individual structure, settlement, and whole regions; from the cutting dates of timber used to build new roofs. When there are no new cutting dates found within an intire region, and contemperary uncut timber has extremely narrow grouth rings, we know when a given area was no longer occupied.

I also remember that after AD 1350 there reoccurred short periods (about 5 to 15 years) of sever drought followed by sever flooding (of one to three years) until around AD 1850. Then a little farther afield I may recall the collapse of the Middle Mississippian Culture (which covered much of the central US) between AD 1150 and 1300. Also I think the high altitude Tiwanaku went down the tube about the same time (starting around AD 1150), and lets not forget the infamous disappearance of the Norse Greenland colony (decline starting around AD 1150-defunct by 1450), as well as the demise of the Viking expansion (decline starting around AD 1150-more or less defunct by 1300), Great Famine (1315-1317), Black Death (1346-1351), and of course least I forget; the Curse of One Rabbit (now its high-tide dendro-dated between 1332 to 1543).

I suppose the big picture here is that due to repeated drought, flood, and famine associated with the Little Ice Age, already nutritionally stressed global populations were more susceptible than ever to the evolving new range of Variola. In fact, upon contact, the natives of the western hemisphere were nothing special; the pox was known to reap a far wider swath when the sandbox was bigger. As later as the 18th century it claimed an average of several hundred-thousand every year in Europe alone. It seems that the Romans of the Imperial Period also saw their fair share of Variola. Strange, how the pox only wants to come out and play big-time whenever moma-earth decides its time to get cold?




CmacQ

[lobf]

The inca empire never got as far as southern Chile. There were other peoples here, namely the araucanos or mapuches.

The Inca Empire almost didnt extend across the south of Chile nor Argentina. Well they occupied some really little areas of the NW extreme of Argentina and a big area of north Chile but it wasnt for a long time nor a populated area in that time.

No, southern Chile wasn't controlled by the Inca empire. But much of modern day Chile was. It follows to me that people existed beyond the borders of a particular political state. And considering Inca interest in the areas around southern Chile/Argentina, it wasn't individuals roaming deserts.

Edit- My point is there were Mapuches in enough numbers to resist the Incas.

Double edit- Which means bunches of Mapuches.

[oudysseos]

Berg-i-dum, I suggest you have a look at Charles Mann's 1491, The Americas Before Columbus. http://www.amazon.com/1491-Americas-...8650407&sr=1-1

There may be controversy between high-counters and low-counters over the population levels of the pre-contact Americas, but no-one thinks that they were deserted.

And what the hell does all this have to do with the Irish?

[cmacq]

Chile and Eire; potatos, I guess? Actually, it seems these were offered as examples of population replacement vs augmentation.




CmacQ

[Berg-i-dum]

Berg-i-dum, I suggest you have a look at Charles Mann's 1491, The Americas Before Columbus. http://www.amazon.com/1491-Americas-...8650407&sr=1-1

There may be controversy between high-counters and low-counters over the population levels of the pre-contact Americas, but no-one thinks that they were deserted.

And what the hell does all this have to do with the Irish?

I never have said that it was a desert or tried to say it, may be it was my bad english, I said *almost desert, of course the only really desert area of the world is Antartica.

I know that book, but I dont consider ir a reference book since the author is a journalist, not a historian, and it is evident that he is trying to make a polemic/ controversial new history of prehispanic America as he said. I havent read it and it is in my list from long time but I could recommend other authors, with an academical reputation and veteran historians, but they are spaniards and of course their books werent translated to english

About the theories cmacq exposed, I consider them really interesting. Of course this could explain too or be part of an explanation about the downfall of Mayas/ Majan. But well I think all this process is difficult to demostrate. And of course it is much more easier to blame the spaniard conquest.

Sumskilz, I really dont think the most of latin americans like to call themselves mestizos or even be proud to have spanish ancestors, The nowadays fashion is to blame the conquerors and exalt native cultures. So little spanish genetic there can be spread like visigoths genetic can be in the spanish population, yeah we can be mixed in a really bit porcentage but not to aseverate we are visigoths or we are goth mestizos. And you will be agree 55.000 colonizers cant change a population of millions. It depends on the areas, of course Antioquia region in Colombia it was heavily colonized and other regions but I dont think in general. A general genetica study could be help but as far as I know that study doesnt exist, and we must consider that genetical sciencie it isnt still developed, we must compare his conclusions with historical ones to make a better vision.

And yea I think this is not relevant to EB too and may be the thread itself, sorry about that.

[Celtic_Punk]

Berg-i-dum, I suggest you have a look at Charles Mann's 1491, The Americas Before Columbus. http://www.amazon.com/1491-Americas-...8650407&sr=1-1

There may be controversy between high-counters and low-counters over the population levels of the pre-contact Americas, but no-one thinks that they were deserted.

And what the hell does all this have to do with the Irish?

I concur... when did "celts not irish" become "chile and argentina are deserted....?

[Riastradh]

Blitzkreig, first I'm rather suprised in you attacking me, especially when you have only proven that you can't read what I wrote. Let's take a look shall we? This is what I said,

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin), who then spread out into Scotland and the Isle of man. They too have multiple Kingdoms/Tribes such as Dál nAraidi, Ulaid, Dál Fiatach and Dál Riata among others. These people are not referred to as "celts" in antiquity nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today. Instead it is thought that they descended from a pre-indo-european people that were inhabiting Iberia and moved into Ireland between 9,000-15,000 years ago.

Now, you proceeded to attack me and say I have no proof of this along with many other pieces which can all be cast aside by the simple fact of this part of the description,

Instead it is THOUGHT

Never did I say anything about the Gaels origins to be complete fact, nor did I ever say that the Irish were called Gaels in Antiquity. In fact, I even stated that they were called the Scoti/Scotti by the Romans which IS factual. While YOU may not agree with the finding and usage of genetic testing, that doesn't change the fact that many in the science community do. I never said this is a 100% fullproof science nor did I say that there is no other possible explanations. However, the present day Irish people according to genetic studies are more and more so thought to be very closely related to the Basque people, who are actually thought quite possibly to be a pre-indo-european people. Does that mean the Irish and Basques are absolutely related? No it doesn't. Does that mean the Basques are without a doubt pre-indo-european? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that genetic studies and testing are a load of uncredible BS? Absolutely not.

All I did was make a clear definition of who the celts of antiquity are and who the gaels are, since everyone kept saying that using celt/celtic was vague. I also simply stated that the use of the term Gael or gaelic would be more appropriate/accurate which it is. Call them Cruithne, Scoti/Scotti, Hibernian if you want I could care less which term you use as all of them are more appropriate than celt/celtic.

There was no reason for you to attack me, and try to say I don't know what I'm talking about. I have been very respectful and thoughtful in my posts and argument. I've also supplied some articles and such which give some credit to what I've been trying to say. You saying that certain sciences or arguments are uncredible is ignorant. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows for certain whether the genetic testing results are 100% correct. Fact is, what I have said isn't simply a load of crap out of nowhere and you acting like an ass in uncalled for.

[blitzkrieg80]

this last post is a much more objective post [except the end] - your much clear-er statements are appreciated.

The Gaels or Scoti/Scotti(Latin), are the ancient peoples of Ireland, Ἰουερνία Iouernia(Greek), Hibernia/Scotia(Latin)

You said THIS as if it is fact, that the Gaels WERE the ancient inhabitants of Ireland which is not true, which was my point... or are you suggesting that the ancient Irish ARE Q-Celtic-speakers who arrived much earlier? Gaelic is a Celtic language- FACT. Therefore, Gaels is not a better term. You still have not proven this to be the case. You make a good argument and we appreciate your thoughtful discussion of the topic, but Celts and Celtic-speaking peoples are not the same as Gauls / continental Celts or Brythonic or P-Celtic speakers or La Tene / Halstatt culture-practitioners. There is no need to argue whether your opinion on 'Celt' is correct (which we agree it is, in the Classical sense), because Celtic language is a commonly accepted usage, just like Germanic is, despite 'German' being a designation for different people than Deutsch and its related parentage. Similarly, I don't plan on arguing for Deutsch, Teuton, or Theuthisk instead of 'Germanic' just because it sounds better to me (and IS more accurate): believe me, I would argue that! Perhaps the usage of English language is the issue? Is 'Celtic' more specific in Gaelic? Because in English academia, Celtic is appropriate for Celtic-speakers- that's all I am saying. This is the reason Celtic-speakers are described as Celtic. I don't need proof of this because all of academia supports it... or prove me wrong. The Gaels are a specific people who are important to Ireland's history but far from the definition or ethnic origin.

We agree that we can expand the future descriptions concerning the people to encompass non-Celts... maybe this wasn't clear? I will truly remember this conversation and make an attempt to change this stuff in EB2, because you have a point and I believe in supporting attempts at truth and objective perspective. Honestly, I already mentioned this internally with other members as an issue, because of the 'theory' involved in Irish pre-history and the voice of certainty that is a little too much. Other fans have also voiced their concern on this kind of thing, some more polite than others, but without much convincing evidence, which is why we might seem over-sensitive to the matter.

My objective was to try and show that there is no reason to make a big fuss, and if i was overly aggressive, I apologize, because you brought up a legitimate concern, even if presumptuous, and it has turned out to be an interesting discussion, if a little OT. Yet, you cannot deny that you tried to claim authority on the matter, which is why you receive such a reaction. I don't state something as if it is fact then wonder why people try to disprove it. you're right we won't find new information to prove anything on either side, so i for one am willing to postulate that you are indeed correct, even if there is evidence to the contrary.

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows for certain whether the genetic testing results are 100% correct.

we know this isn't possible, actually... this should be known, if one truly understands science and theory. there is no single scientist in the history of mankind who got it all right on the first try, never needing to have further amendments or refinement to their science, theory or method.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What you have been posting about for the past three pages is research done 5-10 years ago which, after the initial hooh-hah was ultimately placed in the "yes, and?" pile.

Your basic thesis is that the population of the British Isles in general and Ireland in particular is not Celtic, but rather of Basque descent. One of the articles posted declared that the Northern population of Britain was Germanic in its extraction, and spoke a Germanic language.

As a Medievalist I have to say that this last doesn't pan out very well. While, as I said, there may only have been 200,000 Sais invaders that doesn't change the fact that it was a 200,000 odd ARMY that came over, big bastards with beards and swords, axes and all manner of high-tech death-dealing hardware.

The rejection of the "Invasion and Extinction" by modern scholarship is quite right, but the very recent attempt to replace it with "immigrated and settled down" is as much a facet of out desire to re-write history as a reflection of any of the evidence. Our ancestors didn't write the Chronicles as fiction. Increasingly we find that the basic thread throughout is surprisingly accurate, even with something as removed as the Trojan War.

To be honest you haven't said anything I haven't read before, and much of it has been largely rejected as not really historically relevant.

[Sumskilz]

When we consider that Gaelic is a Celtic language, isn’t saying that the Irish are not Celts like saying the French are not Latin? I mean they are and they aren’t. We have ample historical evidence regarding the Roman conquest of Gaul and the subsequent invasions, if genetic testing were to be done on the French, would it be able to tell us the complex story that we know from history? I doubt it, and we just don’t have much of a record to go on when it comes to prehistoric Ireland, so there is very little evidence against which the results of genetic testing can be framed.

[oudysseos]

Riastradh, I have gone over Blitzkriegs posts and I cannot see anywhere that he 'attacked' you. Indeed, until you called him an ass, I thought that this thread was both very interesting and refreshingly polite.
And really, you haven't overcome the objections to your original position. You said that the Irish aren't Celts. Well then, who are they? Gaels, you say. O.K., who are the Gaels? Celtic-speaking peoples.
In fact, 'Gael' might have been considered an insulting description by the 3rd century BCE people of Ireland, as it appears to derive from Guoidel in Old Welsh, meaning "pirate", or "raider". Perhaps the best description for the Irish in the EB time period would be 'Scoti' or 'Attacoti'. Both appellations are from a later period than EB, but still might be more accurate than 'Gael' or 'Celt'.

You said their Warrior culture had nothing to do with Celtic tribes. Since there are no primary written sources from Ireland in the period in question, this is really a moot point. But you do have to expect to be challenged on assertions and assumptions, and it is not an attack on you personally to ask that you support a statement like

nor are they thought to be a true celtic people by the majority of scholars, scientists and archaeologists today

by quoting and/or citing some of these scholars, scientists and archaeologists.

For example, Barry Cunliffe, whose authority on the Celts is generally conceded, has theorized that the

profusion of archaeological evidence for exchange relations among the different Atlantic-facing sectors of the European coast, including Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Galicia and Portugal in the late Bronze Age, 1200-200 BC, indicates that 'Atlantic Celtic' may have grown up as a lingua franca, or perhaps an elite language, among the various communities of the eastern seaboard

(quoted in Empires of the Word, Nicholas Ostler). Cunliffe is an eminent archaeologist, has done work in Ireland, has found Celtic artifacts here, some of which are in the National Museum of Ireland on Kildare Street. This isn't directly about 'Warrior Culture' but does speak to the identification of the people in Ireland. Cunliffe, one of those scholars, scientists and archaeologists you mention, thinks that they were Celtic speaking.

Another interesting aspect of Insular Celtic is its possible relationship with Punic. From Empires of the Word

Another hypothesis is ... the theory of Celtic spread by navigation along the Atlantic coast, by noting that major partners in this network, for most of the first millennium BC, were the Phoenicians, many of them (specifically the Carthaginians) based in North Africa, and quite capable of maintaining links along the whole Mediterranean. Now it so happens that in the North African language families, Egyptian, Semitic, and Berber, there are direct parallels for at least seventeen of these curious characteristics of British and Irish Celtic, characteristics that are quite unparalleled in any Indo-European language, let alone their Celtic cousins, and which are indeed extremely rare globally. If Celtic was indeed spread as a coastal lingua franca, these North Africans, in trade and exchange, would have been among its speakers, and effective in moulding it.
But there is no direct linguistic evidence for any of this at the moment: as to the spread of Gaukish across most of Europe, and the origins of Celtiberian, and the Celtic languages of the British Isles, we are in the realm of speculation and reconstruction.

Here is an overview of the consensus of academic, scholary and archaeological opinion on Insular Celtic culture by D.W. Harding, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6, chapter 9.

By contrast with continental Europe, our knowledge of the early Iron Age in Britain derives almost exclusively from the study of settlements and fortifications rather than cemeteries. In consequence, though the evidence for settlement patterns and economy, particularly in southern England, is substantial, the material assemblages from these sites reveal a limited range of types and a markedly insular character compared to the extensive cemetery inventories of Central Europe. Cross-channel connexions are none the less attested from the late Bronze Age to the end of the Iron Age, the Channel itself serving as a natural route for trade and exchange rather than as a barrier to cultural communication. Population movements are notoriously difficult to substantiate archaeologically, but linguistic evidence alone requires the introduction of Celtic-speaking people into Britain and Ireland by a date which can hardly be later than the middle of the first millennium B.C. A simple equation between areas of Celtic settlement and the distribution of La Tene artefact types is plainly untenable here, since this would effectively exclude large parts of Scotland and Ireland which none the less have abundant evidence of Iron Age occupation. In Ireland, the contrast between the distribution of La Tene metalwork in the northern half of the country (coincident broadly with the distribution of beehive rotary querns) and its relative absence in the south west, where later prehistoric settlement is attested notably in small, stone forts (cashels, cathairs), has given rise to the use of the term 'non-La Tene' Iron Age for this variant of insular Celtic culture. The origins of Ireland's Celtic settlement are contentious, since the surviving linguistic evidence is Q-Celtic, predominantly if not exclusively, by contrast to P-Celtic in Gaul and southern Britain. Scottish Gaelic is generally reckoned not to have been transmitted across the North Channel until the invasions of the Scotti around the fourth century A.D. and thereafter, but it is not impossible that a Q-Celtic language was introduced earlier into Atlantic Scotland along a west coast route from Iberia and south-western Ireland. In archaeological terms, such an Atlantic cultural axis would be essentially non-La Tene, so that La Tene metalwork in Ireland would need to be explained as a separate introduction, perhaps involving reciprocal influences with northern England and southern Scotland, but not necessarily requiring population movements on any significant scale.

My emphases throughout. Clearly, the Irish are considered to be 'Celtic' by scholars, scientists and archaeologists by at least the EB time period, even if they are not related to the Gauls. In fact I retract my earlier suggestion about Scotti: Gael, Scotti and Attacoti are designations that cannot be firmly tied to the 3rd century BCE, no matter how appropriate they might be for later time periods. 'Celt', however, by being general, subsumes all of these appellations, and is therefore the best name for the Celtic speaking people of Ireland in 272 BCE.


P.S. I'm not dogmatic about Irish origins just 'cos I'm Irish. I'm sticking with Celt 'cos it seems the best general description, not 'cos my world will collapse if I can't call myself a Celt. I mean, who cares? we're all homo sapiens at the end of the day.

[cmacq]

from another thread

A Branch Way Too Far



Sometimes it doesn't take too long to find the fatal flaw in these thingy’s. Right, I've looked into this population replacement/augmentation thing, by way of the archaeology, for a good deal of time now, and I've noticed several interesting patterns. I'll share them, but first I've got to get myself to work, as its both a field day, and I'm thinking a rain day.

In the meantime, can anyone familiar with the genetic study in question, tell me the number of actual individuals used in the study and how these plot out geographically, what were the range of attributes identified; and of these how many clusters were noted and how do they plot out geographically. I'm thinking that what we have here is a case of scientific slight of hand. For example; we have an island called X were 20 related women and 20 related man live (total 40 with no children). Then on year one a group of 65 adult men with no women invade island X and kill all but 5 of the adult native men. This group of 65 newcomers now represents about 2/3s of the total population, and they go on the bred and have children with all 20 of the native women. However using the type of DNA the study used, 1000 years later the newcomers would be represented in about 0/0 percent of the sample. If I'm correct, then these genetic studies are yet another huge waste of time and money. In other words, a wee bit meaningless.



CmacQ

[oudysseos]

I can't comment on the utility of these genetic studies, but I can provide Cmacq (what does that mean?) with a link to the data. http://www.gen.tcd.ie/molpopgen/resources.php
I reckon that the study originally referred to by Riastradh in his first post is the last one on this page, i.e. The Longue Duree of genetic ancestry: multiple genetic marker systems and Celtic origins on the Atlantic facade of Europe, McEvoy B, Richards M, Forster P, Bradley DG. According to the readme text, the study considered 300 individuals in Ireland. There are additional files detailing the results and providing the data used, but I have no idea what all the numbers mean .

Late breaking developments: here is the full text of the study. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=15309688

Riastradh, I respectfully suggest that you take a look at this. It neither says that Irish culture wasn't Celtic or that they unequivocally came from Iberia.

The recolonization of western Europe from an Iberian refugium after the retreat of the ice sheets ~15,000 years ago could explain the common genetic legacy in the area. An alternative but not mutually exclusive model would place Atlantic fringe populations at the “Mesolithic” extreme of a Neolithic demic expansion into Europe from the Near East.
An alternative explanation might simply be restricted patterns of long-term gene flow within these two major ecogeographical zones in Europe, facilitated by the Atlantic and Mediterranean seaways. It is difficult to distinguish genetically between a common Paleolithic origin and more recent contacts. However, haplogroup R1b3f Y chromosomes, which have a recent origin in Iberia (Hurles et al. 1999), have not been found in Ireland (Hill et al. 2000), arguing against the migration of very large numbers of men by this route, at least, in the past 2,000–3,000 years.
What seems clear is that neither the mtDNA pattern nor that of the Y-chromosome markers supports a substantially central European Iron Age origin for most Celtic speakers—or former Celtic speakers—of the Atlantic facade. The affinities of the areas where Celtic languages are spoken, or were formerly spoken, are generally with other regions in the Atlantic zone, from northern Spain to northern Britain. Although some level of Iron Age immigration into Britain and Ireland could probably never be ruled out by the use of modern genetic data, these results point toward a distinctive Atlantic genetic heritage with roots in the processes at the end of the last Ice Age.

What it does say is that the genetic evidence does not support a central European origin for the people of the British Isles. The monolithic common origin of all Celtic speaking peoples was proposed by Edward Lhuyd in 1707 and has not been the major academic consensus for a long time, so this isn't really news, eh?

Anyway, Cmacq, I hope this is what you're looking for.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Op says 200 people in Ireland compared to 8,500 samples from Europe and N. Africa.

200 people is really a tiny minority, the population of Ireland was already into the several million by the turn of the first millenium.

[oudysseos]

I should really be working.

But I found this article on the web and don't know what to make of it. I was hoping someone with more expertise could let me know what they think. It's about the Gaels and purports to show that the Leabhar Gabhala Eireann can be taken literally. Interesting reading, anyway.

http://www.ctv.es/USERS/ocalitro/

[cmacq]

Whence comfort seemed to dwell,
discomford no sooner swelled,
so go Gallowglasses and skippy Kerns,
both compelled...

to trust their heels?



I've always thought that the use of Gallowglass/Gallóglaigh by the Scotts and Irish as being 'foreign-Infantry,' was initially derived from their word for the Guals. We have Gall- from Gallus, meaning Gaul, and gal meaning valour, war, or might. Additionally, og-, óc-, or óac- young; and -laoch, -laigh or -lach, warrior. Then, those with some understanding of the subject will note the Old Irish word 'cruithnecht,' meaning wheat (literally; that which is 'cut' or 'harvested). Thus, the word Cruithne (Cruithni) most likely meant something like '[those] that harvest' or 'farmers?'

Also, there is a very old family tradition about a personage called the Muirannach or 'Sea Rover' and a lady from the far south called Gríanach or 'Sunshine.' This tradition has something to do with seasonal change and concludes that the clan was directly descendant from the above union by day, and by night the seal (you know Phoca vitulina). I believe a number of other clans from Scottland's western isles and some from parts of Ireland have similar traditions. And then there is the symbolic Salmon, as the clan totem and all of what that entails, and it goes on and on. I wonder if the Sunshine story was a adaptation of the Egypt story?




CmacQ

[Elmetiacos]

In fact, 'Gael' might have been considered an insulting description by the 3rd century BCE people of Ireland, as it appears to derive from Guoidel in Old Welsh, meaning "pirate", or "raider". Perhaps the best description for the Irish in the EB time period would be 'Scoti' or 'Attacoti'. Both appellations are from a later period than EB, but still might be more accurate than 'Gael' or 'Celt'.

Using the modern classification "Gael" or "Celt" doesn't imply that the people so classified used that designation themselves; if we say Old Norse is a Germanic language, that doesn't mean 11th Century Norwegians called themselves Germans. The Attacotti are not Irish (necessarily) they simply got assigned to Ireland or the far North of Scotland because no historian could think of anywhere else they came from, assuming they were a tribe at all - the name suggests "Those who returned to the old ways". As with the Corionototae, it could be mistaking a social or political movement for a tribe.

Another interesting aspect of Insular Celtic is its possible relationship with Punic. From Empires of the Word

For years and years I've heard this bit of wrongness passed on and repeated. It originates in the mid-18th Century with an attempt to show the antiquity of Welsh by demonstrating its proximity with Hebrew, believed at that time to have been spoken in the Garden of Eden and therefore the oldest language in the world. It works by drawing parallels between modern Welsh or modern/mediaeval Irish and either Phoenician or Berber. It omits to mention that all these similarities are only with modern Celtic: they don't work at all when you compare the forms of these languages as we think they were spoken in 200BC.

P.S. I'm not dogmatic about Irish origins just 'cos I'm Irish. I'm sticking with Celt 'cos it seems the best general description, not 'cos my world will collapse if I can't call myself a Celt. I mean, who cares? we're all homo sapiens at the end of the day.

The Irish are called Celts because the Irish language is Celtic. The term comes with a lot more baggage than any other designation, but in the end it only means with certainty Celtic-speakers - after that arguments like this thread start.

[cmacq]

There may be some that could find this of interest.


As I posted above, that the Old Irish word 'cruithnecht,' means wheat (literally; that which is 'cut' or 'harvested). Thus, the word Cruithne (Cruithni) most likely meant something like '[those] that harvest' or 'farmers?' A meaning for Cruithne better yet, is 'the peasantry,; or 'not of the ruling class.' Now remember that in Britain, which was initially called Albion, the term Cruithne was morphed into pryteni, supposedly by the first users of P-Celt sometime in the 4th century BC. If indeed Cruithne and Pryteni were the same word, the term Briton may actually have meant ‘the peasantry,’ as well. This may suggest that the culture of Britain/Albion, before the P-Celts move in, was very similar to that found in Ireland at a later date. Please don't fixate on the use of Celt in the term P-Celt, it in fact has nothing to do with the Celts, its just a well established and common usage.

Now for the interesting part; I tracked down the origin of the term Gael and its a relatively recent invention. It seems to have come from Scots (English; aka Doric, Lallans, or Teri) as derived from of the Scots Gaelic term for a Scottish Islander or Highlander; Gaidheal. Its first documented use was in 1596. From Scots English it went to English proper, and in the 1800s was adopted into both Scotland and Ireland as the proper name of the native lingo. Therefore the word Gaelic is actually an English term, derived from a Gaelic word that was in due course intergraded into the Gaelic language as the name of said language. I’ll get back to this gael thingy in a moment, but first…

The actual Old Irish term used to refer to the ruling class Irish and Scots was Goídeleg. This particular word has a very interesting meaning. The root is derived from the Irish Goid/Goídim, meaning steal, thieve, or seize, which was from the Early Irish Gatam/Gad-doi; its root being Gad/Ghad. The latter means to seize, hold, or contain. Thus in this context the term Goídeleg pertains to ‘those that hold.’ Its very possible that Cruithne actually refers to the peasantry and Goídeleg, the ruling class without an attempt to address ethnicity. With the exception of slaves, this was more or less how the class system was set up in Ireland in the Pre- and Roman Iron Age. However, it seems that early on the meaning of Goídeleg, in a larger context may have been influenced by the retendition of goidel within Brythonic (as it appears in Old Welsh) to mean pirate or raider. This calls to mind the Roman use of Scotti, to mean Irish pirates, as taken from the Gaelic scaoth, scaoith or skoiti meaning; a swarm (like bees), or in this context, 'a swarm (of warriors).'

The kicker is that with the use of Gal, to mean foreigner, as this actually was an indirect reference to the Gauls, the Latin form of which Kelt was the Greek, for the same ethnicity, even the ancient Irish were telling us very clearly, that they were indeed not Celts. So whom is one to believe; the ancient Irish themselves?






CmacQ

[oudysseos]

the ancient Irish were telling us very clearly, that they were indeed not Celts

In a celtic language. Can we agree that they were a celtic-speaking peoples? Or do you think that q-celtic is misidentified and not related to continental celtic languages? And if I may ask, what do you think is an appropriate term for the Irish in the EB time period?

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units).

Historically, early Ibero-Celtic Ireland was populated by numerous tribes with an overking, from which spawned the seat of the high king that fell into constant contest by the time Rome fell, and the sub-kingdoms of Ireland were rendered into warring splinters. However, despite the varying periods of relative stability with a kind of warring states period, the Goidils always relied on a tribal model, with each family being headed by an elected chief, who acted as the tribe's spokesman to the mounting tiers of officials.

Historically, the Goidils were not a single group of Celts, but intermingled blood of Gauls, Britons, Belgae, and even Iberians.

I'm asking about this because my (lay-man's) interpretation of the genetic evidence that we have been discussing is that the ethnic heritage common to Ireland and Iberia dates to the meso- or neo-lithic, thousands of years before q-celtic language and culture became part of Irish life. The McEvoy study says explicitly that two to three thousand year old Iberian haplogroups are not found in Ireland. To put it another way, the people who built Newgrange were not Celts/Gaels/Goidels/whateveryouwantotcallthem. So does a stone-age connexion between the Irish and Iberian populations warrant identifying an Ibero-Celtic culture? I'd say not, but there may be other information that those with more expertise have knowledge of.

Elmetiacos- re the punic-gaelic connexion: I'll defer to your superior knowledge, but I did want to point out that the quote from Empires of the Word does not seem to be a rehash of some 18th century chestnut, but rather recent research from Orin David Gensler, A Typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Syntactic Parallels, PhD Dissertation, UC Berkley, 1993.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=f899...sult#PPA890,M1

There is also a very interesting article in Archaeology and Language IV, Blench and Spriggs ed., Celts and Others, Maritime Contacts and Linguistic Change, by John Waddell and Jane Conroy.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=NemX...over#PPA125,M1

[Celtic_Punk]

Cmaq... You also gotta think that perhaps they were looking for their own identity? To them there were only gauls and britons as foreigners. Sure they'd get the odd tale from a bard of places distant, but the people whom they'd have contact with would be (for the lack of a proper inoffensive word) other celts.

Even now the surviving Celtic peoples have very different identities, you really can't compare an Irishman and a Breton or a Scotsman or a Corn(on the cob).

Lets just take a step into a hypothetical world. In a widespread culture (Celt) it would be of utmost importance to me to be different to my neighbours, to have my own identity. Such as Adeui Averni, they'd most likely consider themselves Celts, but they wouldn't say they were the same as the other. In their bid to distance themselves from old enemies, or just to gain their own identity in the world, you might just be confusing it with them telling you who they really are.

Of course this is just theoretical. Still food for thought.
No matter I will still hang on to my Celtic identity. A culture that brought the world soap, fine long swords, good helms, one of the first to have semi-equal rights for women (see Queen Bodicca) and an all round bad ass rep on the battlefield.


oh and did I forget Guiness? "A Pint of the black stuff, guv"

[Riastradh]

Oudysseos, first I neither stated that the Irish definately came from Iberia, nor did I say that the culture of iron age Ireland was not celtic in any way. I never stated that my argument was 100% fact and that there is no other way. I was simply trying to point out the use of the term "Celt or Celtic" for the ethnic Irish is not a proper term. I also never said that Gael was the best term, I simply stated that it was more appropriate and it is. Gael refers to people of Irish, Scottish and Manx ethnicity or peoples who speak Gaelic(Irish,Scottish,Manx). Celt, while now is being used very generally, was and is a term used to denote the ethnic people of Gaul and theirs that expanded outward.

In my descriptions of Celt and Gael I did include as much info which is accurate. In my description of Gael, I also included that fact that the Irish were called the Scoti/Scotti by the Romans, though admittedly didn't make that clear enough. In my response to Blitz I also said that they could be called Scotti, Cruithne, Hibernian w/e as they are all more proper designations for the Irish people. Celtic Punk may be right about the different tribes of Gaul trying to distinguish themselves from one another, but I think he overlooks the fact that it is very likely that the would have all refered to themselves as Gauls/Celtae/Gaulish. Especially considering they united to fight Gaius Julius Caesar and the Roman conquest of Gaul.

My whole reason for this thread is that I believe Celtic/Celt or anything thereof is not the right term when refering to Irish units. I have stated this, backed it up with a real description of what a Celt was and is, and given some alternatives. You don't have to necessarily choose from those alternatives as there could be a more accurate term. Just because some people use Celt/Celtic as general terms about any peoples who spoke a celtic language or had some celtic parts of their culture doesn't mean that's what Celt/Celtic actually mean. Those are modern usages nothing more and would definately not have been used for such in the Iron Age. In the Roman empire, a great many people would have spoken latin. However, a great many of those people were not Romans, nor did they consider themselves to be.

Lastly, concerning myself saying that Blitz's post was an attack, that may have been a little over the top. However, telling someone that they don't know what they're talking about, or that you don't think/believe they know what they're talking about, is really just a more polite way of saying you think/believe someone is stupid and/or ignorant. It was a rude thing to say and I believe it was quite uncalled for.

[Elmetiacos]

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units).

The unit notes on the EB website seem to take O'Rahilly's model of Irish history as the absolute truth. While that isn't quite completely discredited, it isn't a very popular view anymore.

[oudysseos]

I descended into pedantry long ago, I suppose. I still have some problems with some of the things you write, Riastradh, but I think that we are splitting increasingly microscopic hairs, here.

I neither stated that the Irish definately came from Iberia

post 86

they descended from a pre-indo-european people that were inhabiting Iberia and moved into Ireland between 9,000-15,000 years ago.

post 46

nor did I say that the culture of iron age Ireland was not celtic in any way

post 86

The Irish are not celts and their warrior culture had nothing to do with celtic tribes

post 1

It is perfectly o.k. to nuance your position as you become aware of information that is new to you, but you ought to acknowledge that you have done so.

I'll try to get to the kernel of the argument. Please correct me if I misrepresent you in any way. Throughout, you seem to use terms like 'Gael' and 'Celt' ethnically and/or racially. You have never denied or addressed the linguistic use of these terms: Whatever you call them, everyone seems to agree that the people living in Ireland spoke a Celtic Language by the latter half of the first millenium BCE. I'll get back to this in a minute.

You object to Celt because
1. Genetic evidence suggests that the Irish are not descended from Central European La Tene"Celts".
2. "Celt" is a modern term that the Irish people of 272 BCE would not have applied to themselves.

But a Cmacq pointed out, 'Gael' is as much, if not more, of a modern construct as 'Celt'. If you object to Celt because they didn't call themselves that, then you have to reject all other terms that aren't indigenous to the people in question. That leaves out Roman terms like Scotti or Attacoti and modern English terms like Gael and Celt. It seems like Goideleg (not synonymous with Gael) is all we're left with. I'd go along with describing the Irish as a 'Celtic-speaking peoples who may have referred to themselves as Goidelegs'.

However, I don't think that, in the context of EB at least if not generally, a strictly ethnic or racial definition of Celt is appropriate.

Q Celtic is not related to invasion by Celts / mainland or P-Celtic speakers who have been coined as 'THE CELTS' of antiquity, thus everyone is confused because nobody ever claimed this to be so. Now, if you disagree on what defines 'Celt' that is another discussion entirely and one that doesn't have much bearing on the origin of Ireland because it spans a much wider issue. When we speak of Celts game-wise and in descriptions, it means Celtic-speakers, and we can discuss if the description should or should not mention that aspect.

Blitzkriegs formulation cannot be improved upon. The truth is that all of the terms that exist to describe these people are words that were applied to them by foreigners, and in the absence of contemporary indigenous names, a term that is base on linguistic affiliation and that has universal acceptance seems to be appropriate. Welcome back, Atlantic Celt.

I still don't see where Blitz said that you don't know what you're talking about. What he did say (and I concur) is that you are wrong about some things. It's not rude to disagree with you. And you have demonstrated a predilection for making statements as if they were recognized universal truths and only presenting evidence and arguments for them after you have been challenged. For example,

Just because some people use Celt/Celtic as general terms about any peoples who spoke a celtic language or had some celtic parts of their culture doesn't mean that's what Celt/Celtic actually mean.

Actually, just because academics, scholars and archaeologists (like the many that I have referenced) use Celt/Celtic as general terms about any peoples who spoke a Celtic language or had some Celtic parts of their culture does in fact absolutely mean that's what Celt/Celtic actually means to the people using the term. I have yet to see one case of a scholar objecting to the use of 'Celtic' to describe Irish culture, even though everyone knows how problematic it is.
I don't think that you'll find much support for defining Celt as meaning only someone who was born in La Tene Switzerland. If I'm wrong, and you do have someone who can support your mega-restrictive use of Celt, then by all means quote, link or cite them. At the very least you need to admit that your position on nomenclature is contrary to standard usage.

Ultimately, disagreement seems to stem from usage: Riastradh, you assert that Celt means only Gauls.

Celt, while now is being used very generally, was and is a term used to denote the ethnic people of Gaul and theirs that expanded outward.

By this standard of course the Irish are not Celts. But your usage is so out of step with what is now commonly accepted that you will have to make a serious case for your position, which I am afraid you have not done. Why are Cunliffe, Ellis, Harding, Waddell, O'Rahilly and on and on wrong when they use Celt to mean 1. Celtic speakers, 2. Celtic material culture and/or 3. Celtic belief system. The Irish are in on all 3 counts.

[Elmetiacos]

Elmetiacos- re the punic-gaelic connexion: I'll defer to your superior knowledge,

A very dangerous thing to do!

but I did want to point out that the quote from Empires of the Word does not seem to be a rehash of some 18th century chestnut, but rather recent research from Orin David Gensler, A Typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Syntactic Parallels, PhD Dissertation, UC Berkley, 1993.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=f899...sult#PPA890,M1

There is also a very interesting article in Archaeology and Language IV, Blench and Spriggs ed., Celts and Others, Maritime Contacts and Linguistic Change, by John Waddell and Jane Conroy.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=NemX...over#PPA125,M1

The link to the dissertation doesn't work, alas. The problem with it is what I said; it relies on backdating grammatical quirks of Irish and Welsh to a period where we don't have them documented, assuming that Brythonic wasn't grammatically similar to Gaulish (although the signs are the languages were mutually intelligible) then supposing these quirks couldn't have come from any source but Afro-Asiatic languages and then supposing that there was never a native form of Afro-Asiatic spoken in the Islands (which Alex Kondratiev and me, some years ago speculated there might have been... that's something for another time)

[Lusitani]

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

Not so long ago europeans got payed for every dead native in what is now southern Argentina and Chile. No wonder there arent many left....