The Irish are Not Celts

[cmacq]

This same theory was proposed for GB.

I see three huge red flags;

1) part-funded by the National Millennium Committee
2) The American Journal of Human Genetics
3) “The primary genetic legacy of Ireland seems to have come from people from Spain and Portugal after the last ice age,” said McEvoy. “They seem to have come up along the coast through western Europe and arrived in Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It’s not due to something that happened 2,500 years ago with Celts. “We have a very old genetic legacy.”

_____________________________________________________

First, the National Millennium Committee is the haunt of those, similar to others which inhabit National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers or NCSHPO in the US, that have a very narrow agenda.

Second, although the study of human genetics uses basic archaeological background information to support theories, in the strictest sense, genetic studies can only provide reliable information about relatively modern populations.

Third, using genetic data McEvoy’s statement is totally speculative; the assumption here is that the composition of Europe’s population in the past was as it is today. Also using McEvoy’s logic western France, Normandy, and England should be the same as well? Now from what I understand, this has been proposed for GB, which is strange because of McEvoy’s further statement about the similarities of the Irish and Scot populations?

For example how could this study discern between the DNA of what may be called continental Celts of the 3rd century BC (that were also present in northern Spain and Portugal, form the extremely ill-defined populations the occupied the extremes of western Europe seven thousand years ago??? It is extremely easy to drown a host of relatively discrete populations into a huge mass of gobblety gook that may appear similar to one glob and different to another. I’ve seen this done with dentition studies. Established relationships depend on the qualifiers and the type of analysis used to sort the data.

With this said, I personally have never viewed the multi-faceted Irish, Scot, Welsh, Briton, nor Breton populations as being Kelt in the strictest use of the term. I view the use of Celt as a modern invention with very little evidence to support it. Its sort of like the tail wagging the dog. For example the term was used by the Greeks and Latins to specifically identify a continental ethnicity associated with the Gallic Culture within a well defined time frame. Of this Gallic Culture we know it was initially centered in southeastern France, Switzerland, southern Germany, and Austria, yet have very little actual evidence of their language. In the modern use Ireland and GB only became Celt after it was discovered that the once dominant language were somewhat related to that used by the former Gallic Culture that was called Kelt.





CmacQ

[Riastradh]

Ok first I would like to point out that most of you have seemed to miss the last line of the article,

Some archeologists also doubt there was a Celtic invasion because few of their artifacts have been found in Ireland.

While there is some evidence of celtic culture in Ireland, it is very slight.

Also I would like to come out and say a few things about my intentions. I did not mean to sound like I was attacking the EB team, I love what u guys do and respect you for it. Second my reasoning in posting this is mearly because I do not think using the term celt when refering to the Gaelic troops is the best choice nor accurate and from what I've seen EB is all about Historical accuracy.

Next. The Reason why I made my statement and then posted the article I did was mainly to give you a piece of scientific research to back up my statement a bit and not just seem like someone just talking out their ass. What I meant by the statement, "The Irish warrior culture had nothing to do with the celtic tribes." was that the Irish troops and warfare system was it's own, not that there was never any influences from other peoples "Period". The Irish warfare system, while sharing some similarities with mainland celtic tribes, was also quite different in a lot of respects. I will go more into these differences later.

Also using the term "Disproven" may have been a little overly final as well. A better wording would be to say it is slowly, but surely becoming apparent that the previously held belief of the celtic invasion into Ireland is not historical reality.

Again I would like to say that my post was not to "attack" or be "critical" of the EB team, but more so to show them a difference than what they had put into their excellent mod. My main point was that they should not refer to the Gaelic warrior units as "celtic" in any future developments and instead simply refer to them as just "Gaelic, Goidilic or Goedelic".

I will post some new info later after work, typing this on my lunch break

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok first I would like to point out that most of you have seemed to miss the last line of the article,


While there is some evidence of celtic culture in Ireland, it is very slight.

Also I would like to come out and say a few things about my intentions. I did not mean to sound like I was attacking the EB team, I love what u guys do and respect you for it. Second my reasoning in posting this is mearly because I do not think using the term celt when refering to the Gaelic troops is the best choice nor accurate and from what I've seen EB is all about Historical accuracy.

Next. The Reason why I made my statement and then posted the article I did was mainly to give you a piece of scientific research to back up my statement a bit and not just seem like someone just talking out their ass. What I meant by the statement, "The Irish warrior culture had nothing to do with the celtic tribes." was that the Irish troops and warfare system was it's own, not that there was never any influences from other peoples "Period". The Irish warfare system, while sharing some similarities with mainland celtic tribes, was also quite different in a lot of respects. I will go more into these differences later.

Also using the term "Disproven" may have been a little overly final as well. A better wording would be to say it is slowly, but surely becoming apparent that the previously held belief of the celtic invasion into Ireland is not historical reality.

Again I would like to say that my post was not to "attack" or be "critical" of the EB team, but more so to show them a difference than what they had put into their excellent mod. My main point was that they should not refer to the Gaelic warrior units as "celtic" in any future developments and instead simply refer to them as just "Gaelic, Goidilic or Goedelic".

I will post some new info later after work, typing this on my lunch break

I'm afraid you are behind the curve really. The only "gnetically" Celtic people identified in Britain today are Cornish and Devonian. This is the epicentre (as far as we know) of Gallic/Celtic immigration, and there is some evidence in the artisic decoration of, for example, bronze mirros in the centuries BC to indicate that Celtic culture spread from here outwards.

Ireland was far from cut off from the rest of Europe and Irish geography could probably account for as many differences in Irish culture as could any issolationist theory.

This was all put foward for the Saxon invasion. The conclusion was that there were never more than 200,000 invaders in all, versus 2 Million Romano-Britons. The Saxons took over a little bit at a time and many married/raped local women. The result is a Germanic people, with a greater prepondance to dark hair and eyes.

[IrishHitman]

Before someone comes out with the "Scottish culture is close to Irish culture, therefore Irish culture is Celtic" argument, Ireland invaded Scotland (The Scotii group gave Scotland its name) and England in the aftermath of the Romans pulling out of key areas of Britain.

i.e. they're similar because Irish warfare and conquest caused a cultural exchange, with language being the main Irish export.....

[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