The Irish are Not Celts

[Sumskilz]

CmacQ,

Just to clarify, I was saying that it is easy to correlate genetic evidence with historic records in Latin America precisely for the reasons you state. That of course is in contrast to ancient Ireland where we have so very little to go on. I've also read estimates stating that as high as 90% of Native Americans were wiped out by disease which is something that has no (as far as I know) parallel in Ireland. As far as how many Native Americans were outright killed by the Spanish you get a different story depending on which primary source you read, Las Casas verses Bernal Diaz for example, but I suppose that’s getting off topic.


Riastradh,

I question your conclusions, however that’s not to say that you didn’t bring up an interesting topic that no doubt requires further investigation. I think one issue lies in the fact the term Celt is so vaguely defined. How many of the people that we feel comfortable calling Celts would have called themselves Celts, or Gauls, or Germans for that matter. The categorizations are convenient for modern scholarship but don’t reflect the ancients’ self-identities.


IrishHitman,

I agree, so should Irish culture then be compared to Breton, Cornish, or Welsh culture? How can all the various cross-cultural influences be sorted out? I don’t think modern cultural comparisons are very useful in this case? We probably are served best by archeology and the earliest primary sources.

[Riastradh]

ok it seems I should rephrase and define some of what I have said.

First, The Celts of whom I speak are the Celtae, Κελτοί (Κeltoi), Gallus(Latin) peoples who resided in Gaul and spread into Iberia, Italy, and into the east(Thrace, Galatia and others.) There were many tribes such as the Arverni, Aedui, and the Helvetii(Belgae are actually thought to be quite possibly a germanic tribe, though it's still disputed). These people are the "celts" of antiquity, they are whom Diodorus, Hecataeus, Strabo and pretty much all other classical accounts speak of.

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.

While the Gaels did slowly absorb many pieces of celtic culture, they are not celts and should not be referred to as such. That is all I wanted from this post, to have the Irish units be referred to only as gaels or gaelic not as celts or celtic. Does this help to clear a bit up about what I've been trying to say guys?

[IrishHitman]

ok it seems I should rephrase and define some of what I have said.

First, The Celts of whom I speak are the Celtae, Κελτοί (Κeltoi), Gallus(Latin) peoples who resided in Gaul and spread into Iberia, Italy, and into the east(Thrace, Galatia and others.) There were many tribes such as the Arverni, Aedui, and the Helvetii(Belgae are actually thought to be quite possibly a germanic tribe, though it's still disputed). These people are the "celts" of antiquity, they are whom Diodorus, Hecataeus, Strabo and pretty much all other classical accounts speak of.

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.

While the Gaels did slowly absorb many pieces of celtic culture, they are not celts and should not be referred to as such. That is all I wanted from this post, to have the Irish units be referred to only as gaels or gaelic not as celts or celtic. Does this help to clear a bit up about what I've been trying to say guys?

I would have to agree.

[Starance Quintus]

Its amazing how complete languages can just disappear :) There is even projects within the military trying to determine a lot of historical evidence that has been classified. Europe is set to become completely Islamic, and that English will not be the 1st language.

[blitzkrieg80]

[edit]
Riastradh, ah i see what the issue seems to be even though we've gone over it...
#1 - 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.

what is your evidence to associate 'Gaels' with pre Indo-Europeans, other than some side-commentary about population and current theoretical gene-tests concerning the area in general? how do you know 'Gael' has anything to do with them? if they were a population before Celtic-speakers, then would they not use an identity based NOT in Indo-European language? so you must be speaking of the people we term Gaels who are a conglomeration of peoples who we do not know about other than some related material culture rather than the Gaelic-speakers themselves? because 'Gael' as an identity is of Indo-European origin with much more substantial proof illustrating this than some non-verifiable speculation that the term is somehow based on those true pre Indo-Europeans peoples who existed before and beside them... you don't even mention the cultural traits / material related to the people you are referring, which makes me think you are not even sure who you're talking about... if we know so much about Megalithic culture, then why are we not discussing this? if so much is known about the Iberian roots and relation of the culture to first inhabit Ireland, why are these extra facts excluded from the discussion? all i read from you is that you read a scientific article that agrees with your theory and there was once a material culture reaching to the British Isles that no one disputes to have existed... where is your evidence that there is a direct connection? missing links... missing links [wait- is there an iceman i don't know about?]

we don't know the identity or language of pre-Celtic/Gaelic invaders in Ireland, so claiming you know they were pre Indo-European makes no sense, when you can't even verify WHERE the Indo-Europeans came from or at what extent they inhabited Europe during pre-history and before writing and linguistic tracing.

btw, those who rule the culture (Celtic aristocracy) at the time of the Gaels, would be called 'Gaels' and thus are Celtic, thus why they use Celtic language... saying the citizens of the Persian Empire are not Persian, or the Romans are not Roman, might be true (although only partially) yet it's not helpful or descriptive at all either, unless someone is trying to say they are ALL Persian and you're trying to make a point. we have not disagreed with you, that all citizens of Ireland at the time of EB are Celtic, we agree there were more to them than meets the eye...
_________________

so, if we don't call them Celts, we should call them Gaels? but Gael is just as much inaccurate because that would imply Celtic-speaking people, whether you think so or not. Politically-correct or making people happy with what they are comfortable hearing is not the issue. so then we must have a frame of reference for peoples before them, yet there is no record of a unified or related people before them... see where this is going?... call ancients 'British' instead of 'English' to signify non-Anglo-Saxons is very similar because it is WRONG. At no point in ancient or medieval time were the inhabitants of all Great Britain referred to as 'British' or 'Briton' by their own words... the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refer to the Bretons as Bretwelas versus other Welsh (Celts) which means specifically that not all Celts in Britain even had the same identity. So, to make modern Celts in Great Britain happy, it would NOT be correct to call them 'British' other than for their own modern identity. The only reason Great Britain is the name of the island is because the Roman name was the first appropriate name and otherwise it had no identity. Hibernian were not same identity as ancient Irish either. There is no known name, if there was ever a collective identity which was lost. Sorry, that is a fact. Byzantines are similar too... they didn't call themselves Byzantines, but we use the term today!

__________________

Its amazing how complete languages can just disappear :) There is even projects within the military trying to determine a lot of historical evidence that has been classified. Europe is set to become completely Islamic, and that English will not be the 1st language.

believe it or not, Islamic is not a language

[IrishHitman]

B]Europe is set to become completely Islamic[/B], and that English will not be the 1st language.

Eh, no.
It will just be another major religion is all.

[cmacq]

ok it seems I should rephrase and define some of what I have said.

First, The Celts of whom I speak are the Celtae, Κελτοί (Κeltoi), Gallus(Latin) peoples who resided in Gaul and spread into Iberia, Italy, and into the east(Thrace, Galatia and others.) There were many tribes such as the Arverni, Aedui, and the Helvetii(Belgae are actually thought to be quite possibly a germanic tribe, though it's still disputed). These people are the "celts" of antiquity, they are whom Diodorus, Hecataeus, Strabo and pretty much all other classical accounts speak of.

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.

I think this was what I may have posted, higher up. What, no mention of the Epidii/Επίδιοι???

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.

Seemingly in conflict, I also view very few Irish or Scots as being Gaels, with most being Cruithne and nearly none being Celts. On the other hand, I've come around to equating the Belgae peoples with the P-Celt Brythonic, yet see very few Welsh or Britons, as Belgae, nor all but few being Celt. As far as the Belgae being German, indeed with no doubt this is the case, however much as with the modern misuse of the word Celt, this word German is from the Latin germane, which has a number of related meanings. These include; full, own, seed, original, genuine, and of the same parents. The Latins used the term to indicate the extremely close connection between the culture and language of the Celts and the people they called Germans (not the Culture that modern English speakers call German), whom were not at all Deutsch. So, I’ll admit that the Belgae, Istaevones, and Ingaevones where not Celts per se, yet I would view them as both German and Brythonic. I hope no one is confused?






CmacQ

[Frostwulf]

I pretty much have to agree for the most part with cmacq on the Belgae(drifting thread) as backed up by Caesar,Tacitus and the modern authors of Maureen Carrol and Simon James.
" But a more important point is that the peoples-called-(by Caesar, and probably among themselves)-Gauls were actually highly diverse, and some of them, especially some of the peoples-called-(by Caesar, and probably among themselves)-Belgae were culturally and perhaps linguistically more like the peoples-called-(by Caesar, and *perhaps* already among themselves)-Germans than like (say) Aquitanian Gauls. 'The Germans', especially in the 1st cent BC, were probably mostly a construct in Roman minds, rather than a self-defined or definable group of peoples with similar social structures, or other qualities (substitute 'generic American Indians' for 'Germans' and you see what I mean)."-Simon James.

[blitzkrieg80]

awesomely put examples, CmacQ and Frostwulf... that illustrates the point i was trying to get at

so now you guys have stirred up some interesting conversation pieces... would then the Cimbri be part of that configuration or at least the Celtic-like component which we see in the Gundestrup cauldron? i think so, at least the Celtic part... and also, what about the Lugii? maybe not Przeworsk, but Oskywie... or Tacitus' implied P-Celtic-speakers of Veneti? who stand out so sharply in 'No Man's Land'? this reminds me of your work, CmacQ, on the global 'disaster' in ancient Denmark and wanderings in the East... could this be related to:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

i'm intrigued... too bad we still have the same information, hehe, but this conversation doesn't happen by many!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-I...heses#Genetics

The present-day population of R1b, with extremely high peaks in Western Europe and measured up to the eastern confines of Central Asia, are believed to be the descendants of a refugium in the Iberian peninsula (Portugal and Spain) at the Last Glacial Maximum, where the haplogroup may have achieved genetic homogeneity. As conditions eased with the Allerød Oscillation in about 12,000 BC, descendants of this group migrated and eventually recolonised all of Western Europe, leading to the dominant position of R1b in variant degrees from Iberia to Scandinavia, so evident in haplogroup maps. The most common subclade is R1b1c9, that has a maximum in Frisia (the Netherlands). It may have originated towards the end of the last ice age, or perhaps more or less 7000 BC, possibly in the northern European mainland.[3]

Developments in genetics take away much of the edge of the sometimes heated controversies about invasions. While findings confirm that there were population movements both related to the beginning Neolithic and the beginning Bronze Age, corresponding to Renfrew's and Gimbutas's Indo-Europeans, respectively, the genetic record obviously cannot yield any direct information as to the language spoken by these groups. The current interpretation of genetic data suggests a strong genetic continuity in Europe; specifically, studies by Bryan Sykes show that about 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans originated in the Paleolithic, suggesting that languages tend to spread geographically by cultural contact rather than by invasion and extermination, i.e. much more peacefully than was described in some invasion scenarios, and thus the genetic record does not rule out the historically much more common type of invasions where a new group assimilates the earlier inhabitants. This very common scenario of successive small scale invasions where a ruling nation imposed its language and culture on a larger indigenous population was what Gimbutas had in mind:[citation needed]

The Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups.

Seems to agree!

[cmacq]

Right,



the Veneti and those pesky Lugii. From the Belgae, the Istaevones, and Ingaevones may have formed a cultural bridge to the west Balts; in this case it would be the Aestii, or as the Saxons called it Æstum? That is a bridge that was smashed by the entry of the Irminones/Hermiones, who were without doubt the dad of the Deutsch, with Irmin from the Old Norse jǫrmun (meaning strong?). So Tactius tells us that Irmin's dad was Mannus, who was simply put; Human Kind. However, despite what Tactius wrote about the Istaevones/Istriaones/Istriones their name implies they were somehow associated with a Istros/Istri/Histria/Ιστριη progenitor, possibly a deity associated with flowing rivers or a coastal region (Rhine and/or North Sea?), and shellfish (Ostrea???).

On the other hand the Ingaevones, or followers of Ing, seem to have been affiliated with a deity, that was roughly analogous to what the Medieval Irish called Angus/Aengus/Oengus, the Tuatha De Danann god of love, youth, and fine words. It seems that Ing was the predecessor to the later Norse Freyr, which simply means, Lord. The Norse Freyr also seems to have been given Ing's attributes, which were similar to those of Aengus/Oengus. So, Ing-landia ='s England; no way! or way? Maybe that’s one reason why it seems difficult for researchers to find so-called Saxon-DNA in Britain?

Interestingly, Jordanes claimed that the historic Hermanaric/Irmanaric, or as Beowulf had it, Eormenric, subjected these British-like-speaking (from Tactius) Aestii. That would be a hoot if the name Aestii was taken from Eesti/Estonia: so that in Prussa and northern Poland, here would be a Finnic basal population with a western Balt aristocracy that was first allied with Veneti and Lugii and a little latter subjected by the Goths, whom were of course, Deutsch. Alls well as far as the archeaology, yet what about those pesky Lugii???

Again, I'd put the Belgae, Istaevones, and Ingaevones as predominatly Brythonic; center, southwest, and southern Germany as Celt; and only extreme northeast Germany as Hermiones or Deutsch. Of course, this in the 3rd to 1st centuries BC, after which the picture changed very quickly, and very dramatically. All I can say is they; that is the Lugii, were considered Germans but not Celt, not Belgic, not Deutsch, most likely not Balt, and by all means not Slav. However, with that said, the attributes of this ethnos appear to have been usurped by, and eventually came to characterize the Deutsch speakers. I’m speculating this process began in the very late 4th century, but more likely to have occurred in the late 3rd BC. However, it is clear that it wasn’t until after the Cimbric event of the late 2nd century that the followers of Irmin became the dominant force in northwest Germany, which lead to significant territorial expansion to the east, west, and south. Of course, these expansions were greatly facilitated by the a dramatic shift to a much cooler-dryer global climate, the relative depopulation of Nordic Scandinavia with a steady demographic flow of the displaced south into northern Germany and Poland, as well as the late Gallo-Roman and early Germano-Roman wars of the 1st centuries BC and AD. Nonetheless, an interesting scenario that fits the archaeology very well.



CmacQ

[Berg-i-dum]

CmacQ,

Just to clarify, I was saying that it is easy to correlate genetic evidence with historic records in Latin America precisely for the reasons you state. That of course is in contrast to ancient Ireland where we have so very little to go on. I've also read estimates stating that as high as 90% of Native Americans were wiped out by disease which is something that has no (as far as I know) parallel in Ireland. As far as how many Native Americans were outright killed by the Spanish you get a different story depending on which primary source you read, Las Casas verses Bernal Diaz for example, but I suppose that’s getting off topic.

I am sorry but I can not be agree with this.

If those "estimates" were right then today almost all the population of South America would be european, ... as the population in North America nowadays is. So hard and terrible disease wich killed the 90%... , it would be clear and well-known in History and it would be change the ethniticy of America, and all this didnt happen. If you go to Mexico, Perú, Colombia you will see the most of population is native or a bit mixed in some areas and upper classes. There are diferences in Chile or Argentina since in these areas there werent natives.

I can be agree only in the case of the Isle of Cuba, first place being colonized, where in the begining of the conquest there was terrible massacres, and nowadays the most of population are descendents of slaves since the natives were murdered or died by disease or hardworks. This was what Bartolomé de Las Casas (and Bernal Díaz) saw in Cuba, and in response Catholic Kings and after Charles I created laws to protect indians: Spain was the only State in his time which had Laws (Leyes de Burgos 1512 and Leyes Nuevas de Burgos 1542) that spoke about the natives as subjects/humans not as people without soul, as it is said the recognition of native rights put Spain at the historical vanguard of modern natural and international law. Of course the laws werent always applied. But in North America there werent any law to protect natives and it was where the real genocide happened, not in the mixed Latin America, spaniards married natives, but englishmen, dutchs killed them or appart them from his new (european) society (racial segregation).

But yes, spaniards are always the bad guys in the History lessons, specially in english History lessons. More "Black Legend and Historical truth"

Sorry again about my english and may be about the off topic

[lobf]

There are diferences in Chile or Argentina since in these areas there werent natives.

[Berg-i-dum]

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.

[lobf]

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.

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.

[Celtic_Punk]

i've never been to agentina and I won't pretend to know anything about its terrain, so correct me if I am wrong. Isn't Argentina covered in thick jungle and quite mountainous. kinda like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? If so thats why it would be sparsely populated.

Off topic: I'd love to go on a 3 week journey through the Amazon or another massive thick jungle. Obviously properly equipped, and physically ready. I'd have to rough it though... no GPS or anything electronic.

[-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.

[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.

[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....