The Irish are Not Celts

[blitzkrieg80]

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)
[...]
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.

Oudysseos, I actually think this correct, besides a very good point! as mentioned by Elmetiacos, much of it seems based on O'Rahilly's model... but I would go further to suggest the rub is in assumed truthiness of Iberian/Ivasion legend from Irish oral tradition. As you make good points, there is not so much evidence to point to a truely late Iberian invasion of Ibero-Celts or whatnot, but there is some late Iberian material culture that doesn't dispel the entire notion and which leaves it on the menu as 'theory,' but the descriptions don't say this. I actually mentioned this as the head of my argument (sorry I don't mean to take away from your poignant argument- just showing some how I have made efforts on the issue) with other EB members in our own discussion to why the Goidelic and Brythonic British Isles stuff in the future needs some tweaks, imo - my own studies have shown this all the be theoretical and should be treated as such, but that doesn't mean we have to un-do everything but it does mean we need to take out those extra bits that spout as if fact and replace them with 'it is thought' and extra tidbits of comparative knowledge. The whole wiki thing in the future should also greatly help this by listing sources and showing the base openly which we've used- the only drawback is all the time it will take for us to log entries into it.

PS - we're not patting each other on the back... I was going to type this before he made a nice post defending the attempt at truth in my words. much thanks for not assuming the worst. i do admit i am rubbed by 'the rub' far too often

PROOF I am an annoying person, sometimes rabble-rouser... AND PROOF, EB is not close-minded:

I must say that I myself question some of the theoretical assertions made as fact such as the Iverni/Milesians being Iberian, based solely on these unorthodox 'Cycles' as has recently come up, and concerning the Iverni/Milesians, Irish people may SAY it is true but it has just as much historical reality as Wessex being ruled by Odin's descendants. I thought it was based on Megalithic [or Atlantic Bronze] culture (which is theoretical but much more convincing than a specific family story) but it seems to be a folk legend made fact in our game.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100255 (thread questioning Celtic invasion which I have helped answer with one of my not so great for Celtic but good IE summation sources)

some of it seems to be in relation to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels and Míl Espáine, Fir Bolg, as well as T. F. O'Rahilly's model?
[...]
Maybe this kind of stuff is more appropriate for the building descriptions (such as temples- it's mythology after all) rather than ethnicities and units? If Anthony can help us with this there might be a way to preserve Ranika's great work without leaving somewhat mythological/nationalistic (no offense intended at all- I am Irish myself. it's no suprise that Germans want to have a rich history or Irish either- but it can lead to bias) information in places it really should not be? we don't have to touch it either- i'm not assuming my way is best or will be agreed with... might we all agree though that very theoretical history, esp. based in mythology shouldn't be in the faction histories? i dont mind synthesizing and having information not commonly known, esp. concerning oral cultures / barbarians, but that doesn't seem to be the case from the little i have looked into this.
Last edited by blitzkrieg80; 03-13-2008 at 14:34.