Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

Alan R. has been “stating what current mainstream archaeological thinking is on this subject” for a while now. As I stated in a previous post during the course of this thread “we can exchange ideas with other disciplines and listen to their opinions,” but this is the genetic genealogy industry. Genetic genealogy is my primary interest.

[Mikewww]

I know some have quoted Henri Hubert before from his works "The Rise of the Celts" and "The Greatness and Decline of the Celts".    I'm about 3/4th through it.  He's an historian who has examined the history and archeology of Europe and knows the languages.    I'll dig up the pages, but he definitely feels the Goidels were the first known Celtics to arrive both on Britain and then on Ireland.  Although he thinks discerning the Picts and the Britons is not as clear as the Goidels, he feels the Picts were the next Celtics on the Isles and then the Britons.  Although both made it to Ireland they only established themselves as minorities were assimilated eventually.  The Belgae came in last and they too were subjugated to the prior culture and assimilated.  On the big island (sounds like Hawaii, lol) it was a different story.  The Goidels left few traces as the Picts and then the Britons dominated... except of course the Gaels came back as Scots.

[IALEM]

Personally I would be very hard pressed to argue with anybody with a trained background in any of the above mentioned fields, but I don't think Alan was setting up an argument, but merely stating what current mainstream archaeological thinking is on this subject. Obviously it would be nice to have some input from others in his field to see if this is an accurate picture.

I am an archaeologist too (although my field of expertise is Roman archaeology, not Prehistoric) and I discussed Alan´s exposition on the subject of Atlantic Bronze, a classification he dismiss as lacking any base, but one supported by many archaeologists, so IMO Alan´s exposition is not "current mainstream" but rather a contested opinion, at least on that regard.

[rms2]

I am an archaeologist too (although my field of expertise is Roman archaeology, not Prehistoric) and I discussed Alan´s exposition on the subject of Atlantic Bronze, a classification he dismiss as lacking any base, but one supported by many archaeologists, so IMO Alan´s exposition is not "current mainstream" but rather a contested opinion, at least on that regard.

I don't think he disputes that a Bronze Age Atlantic trade network existed. What he is saying is that it wasn't the dominant force in the peopling of Ireland and the rest of the British Isles it has been made out to be. So it seems to me you are mischaracterizing Alan's position.

[rms2]

I know some have quoted Henri Hubert before from his works "The Rise of the Celts" and "The Greatness and Decline of the Celts".    I'm about 3/4th through it.  He's an historian who has examined the history and archeology of Europe and knows the languages.    I'll dig up the pages, but he definitely feels the Goidels were the first known Celtics to arrive both on Britain and then on Ireland.  Although he thinks discerning the Picts and the Britons is not as clear as the Goidels, he feels the Picts were the next Celtics on the Isles and then the Britons.  Although both made it to Ireland they only established themselves as minorities were assimilated eventually.  The Belgae came in last and they too were subjugated to the prior culture and assimilated.  On the big island (sounds like Hawaii, lol) it was a different story.  The Goidels left few traces as the Picts and then the Britons dominated... except of course the Gaels came back as Scots.

I already posted at least some of what you are talking about over on that "The Origin of L21" thread here. Here is one of the relevant posts.

I wanted to bump this thread back up for continued discussion, since we now have more R-L21* results than when we last spoke.

Several of us have mentioned Henri Hubert and his book (which was originally in two volumes), The History of the Celtic Peoples. If you don't have it yet, take my word for it, the book is worth buying.

In Chapter I ("The Origins of the Celts") of Part Two, "Movements of the Celtic Peoples," Hubert writes:

The fact which dominates the whole history of the Celts, and apparently starts it, following as it did closely upon the breaking-up of the Italo-Celtic community (if that abstract concept ever corresponded to the existence of a definite social group), is the separation into two groups of peoples, whose languages became different as has been explained above - that is, the Goidelic, or Irish, group, and the Brythonic group, which includes the Gauls.
      The separation of the Celtic dialects is a fact of far greater importance than the supposed distinction between the Celts and the Gauls. It implies a fairly deep division between the peoples which spoke these two groups of dialects, and also a fairly long separation, a fairly long interval between the migrations of the two Celtic bodies . . . In other words, it leads one to believe that the occupation of the British Isles by the Celts and of Ireland by the Goidels took place long before - centuries before - the historical movements of the Brythonic peoples . . . We must go back to the Bronze Age for the earlier invasion (p.131).
. . . The movements of the Celts were, in my opinion, likewise in two waves, and must have been governed by the same demographic laws [i.e., as those that governed the movement of other Bronze Age Indo-European peoples], by the same general facts in the history of civilization. In other words, the breaking-off of the Goidelic group, and probably the first Celtic colonization of the British Isles, must have occurred at the same time as the descent of the Latins into Italy, and that of the first Greek invaders into Greece. The differentiation of the Brythonic, Umbrian, and Doric dialects took place afterwards at some time unknown, among the groups which had remained behind and in contact with one another.
. . . In short, the dividing of the Celtic peoples into two groups is an ancient event, of very great importance, connected with the great facts of European prehistory. It is the consequence of the breaking-up of the Italo-Celtic community (p. 139).

Hubert then spends some time discussing the "cradle of the Celts" and concludes:

Western Germany fulfills these conditions exactly. It is full of place names of Celtic origin, quite especially in the south-west. A very large number have survived in recognizable form (p. 147).

This post is a little long, so I'll get into what he says about the Goidels in the next one.

[rms2]

Here's the second post regarding what Hubert had to say.

In Part V of "Origins of the Celts," Hubert discusses "The Goidelic Cradle":

But whence did the Goidels come, and when did they come? Where must we look for their earliest home on the Continent and their starting-point? Probably they came from north of the Brythonic domain, and it is to them that tradition refers when it tells that the Celts used to live on the low coasts of the North Sea. They must have left those shores very early, for hardly a trace of them remains there (p. 169).
. . . In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrived in the British Isles, coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as the "long barrows", in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of incised or stamped decoration, of a very simple and austere type. The newcomers were of quite a different type, and had other funeral practices.
      They buried their dead under round tumuli, known as "round barrows", in graves in which the body was placed in a crouching position on one side and enclosed in stone flags or woodwork. Later they burned them. In their graves there were zoned beakers (Fig. 33), but of a late type in which the neck is distinguished from the belly, or vases derived from these beakers . . . The grave goods comprised buttons with a V-shaped boring, flint and copper daggers, arrow-heads, and flat perforated pieces of schist which are "bracers", or bowman's wristguards. The skeletons were of a new type: tall, with round heads of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting so as to present a dip at the base of the nose. I have already described them as one of the types represented in Celtic burials.
      The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.
. . .  Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country (pp. 171-173).

So when does he really answer the "where from?" question? Here:

It is at least certain that the Beaker Folk went from Germany to Britain, and not from Britain to Germany. The typical round-heads of the round barrows are a Nordic type, which may have grown up on the plains of Northern Europe . . . Secondly, the similarity of the British barrows to the tumuli of North Germany at the beginning of the Bronze Age and the constant practice of burying the dead, when inhumation is practised, in a contracted position, as in Central Germany; and lastly, the similarity of many of the urns of the round barrows, which are late developments of the zoned beaker, and of other vases found there, to the so-called Neolithic pottery of North Germany in the region of the megaliths.
. . . At this point it is legitimate to ask what became of all the people who set up the megalithic monuments in the north-west of Germany, and what became of the tribes of bowmen who were mingled with them, for it is a dogma of German Siedelungsgeschichte that all the north-west seaboard, Westphalia, and Hanover were emptied of their inhabitants before the second period of the Bronze Age.
      Many scholars, British, German, and French, have accordingly thought that the mixed population of this part of Germany, which one day set off and emigrated, was the original stock of the Goidels (pp. 175-176).
. . . The most obscure point in the hypothesis adopted is the original position of the future Goidels, for if the zone-beaker folk was the nucleus which organized them it is very hard to determine where it was itself formed. Moreover, it spread over almost the whole of the Celtic domain and left descendants there. In any case it occupied all the seaboard districts between the Rhine and the Elbe which remained outside the frontiers previously mentioned. These were the districts which were emptied by the migration of the Goidels to Britain.
. . . Was it a total or a partial emigration? It was probably partial, for there remained what is usually left behind by peoples which have been a long time in a country where they have been engaged in adapting the ground to human life, namely the distribution of dwellings and the shape of villages and fields. In the western part of North-Western Germany, in Western Hanover, and Westphalia, cultivated land and dwellings are arranged in a manner which is foreign to Germany, or has become so. It is the arrangement found in Ireland (Fig. 35), part of England, and France.
. . . Agricultural peoples never change their abode entirely. This is an indication that the Goidels did not leave in one body, and that they did not all leave.
      What was the reason of their emigration? It was certainly not weakness or poverty. Perhaps there was some encroachment of the sea on a coast which has altered much. Perhaps some invention in the matter of navigation was discovered. The megalith builders whom the Goidels surrounded were certainly sailors who were not afraid of crossing the North Sea (pp. 187-188).

[IALEM]

I don't think he disputes that a Bronze Age Atlantic trade network existed. What he is saying is that it wasn't the dominant force in the peopling of Ireland and the rest of the British Isles it has been made out to be. So it seems to me you are mischaracterizing Alan's position.

I wonder how can I mischracterize his position when I am simply quoting his own words. Yes, he admits trade (how could he deny something that has left so important evidences), yet he says Atlantic Bronze Age is a baseless cultural concept, and there is where other archeologists disagree, for instance Kristiansen (1998) talks about the a powerful cultural identity of the Atlantic Tradition, radically different from that of the Urnfields.

[rms2]

I don't think he disputes that a Bronze Age Atlantic trade network existed. What he is saying is that it wasn't the dominant force in the peopling of Ireland and the rest of the British Isles it has been made out to be. So it seems to me you are mischaracterizing Alan's position.

I wonder how can I mischracterize his position when I am simply quoting his own words. Yes, he admits trade (how could he deny something that has left so important evidences), yet he says Atlantic Bronze Age is a baseless cultural concept, and there is where other archeologists disagree, for instance Kristiansen (1998) talks about the a powerful cultural identity of the Atlantic Tradition, radically different from that of the Urnfields.

Well, you are mischaracterizing his position by acting as if what he wrote means he does not believe the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network existed, when what he clearly meant was that it was not the dominant force in the peopling of Ireland and the rest of the British Isles it is often made out to be, i.e., by such people as Barry Cunliffe, Stephen Oppenheimer, etc.

Yes, there was a Bronze Age Atlantic trade network. Did it play a dominant role in the peopling of Ireland, at least where y dna is concerned? It doesn't look that way as things now stand.

Were the peoples involved in that trade network a single culture or ethnic group? That does not seem likely.

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

To IALEM:

Roman archaeology! That's great!

Augustus Caesar died at Nola. His father died at Nola.

http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/augustus.html

Augustus

First Roman Emperor, 63 B.C. - 14 C.E.

Augustus Caesar  of Rome was born with the given name Gaius Octavius on September 23, 63 B.C. He took the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (Octavian) in 44 B.C. after the murder of his great uncle, Julius Caesar. In his will Caesar had adopted Octavian and made him his heir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus#Death_and_succession

On August 19 AD 14, Augustus died while visiting the place of his father's death at Nola,

[IALEM]

Well, you are mischaracterizing his position by acting as if what he wrote means he does not believe the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network existed

Let´s see, before you posted your comment on me "mischaracterizing I had written just 2 posts in this thread, I quote here
1st Post
"Ideas like 'Atlantic Bronze Age' have no real basis. On the basis of settlement, burial, ritual etc traditions it is very hard to see continental settlement on any sort of scale into the isles in this period although trade contact shown in metalwork, ore and influences must have been frequent"
That sentence is very debatable, in fact I debated that with Alan in the DNA forums some months ago. Many archaeologists support the existence of a cultural "Atlantic Bronze Age" area, see Kristian Kristiansen Europe Before History (1998) for an exposition of that with the relevant bibliography.

2nd Post
I am an archaeologist too (although my field of expertise is Roman archaeology, not Prehistoric) and I discussed Alan´s exposition on the subject of Atlantic Bronze, a classification he dismiss as lacking any base, but one supported by many archaeologists, so IMO Alan´s exposition is not "current mainstream" but rather a contested opinion, at least on that regard.

You can read I never wrote a single word about trade, I am sorry but ironically it is you who is mischaracterizing my words as If I wrote something on trade I didn´t. You maybe misread my posts or confused me with another person with those opinions.

[Jean M]

The man couldn't even have his surname listed or connected to what he was writing on these forums, boards, and lists. He requested that his name be deleted. Anonymous debate!

I am not using my full name here because I don't want forum posts to come up at the top of Google results when someone searches on my name. Because of the nature of forums - their size and interlinking - they can accumulate so much PageRank (a key factor in Google's algorithm) that some ancient post could outrank my own website, or staff details, which are much more likely to be what people are looking for.

I've made the mistake of using my full name in the past, so I've learned the hard way. Some other professionals and academics were careful from the start not to post in online forums under their own name, aware that what they said could compromise their employers, or that a public attack on them, magnified by Google into the first thing that anyone sees about them, could wreck their professional reputations and lose them their livelihood. Potential clients can't always tell the difference between a justified attack and a completely unjustified one. 

[rms2]

Well, you are mischaracterizing his position by acting as if what he wrote means he does not believe the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network existed

Let´s see, before you posted your comment on me "mischaracterizing I had written just 2 posts in this thread, I quote here
1st Post
"Ideas like 'Atlantic Bronze Age' have no real basis. On the basis of settlement, burial, ritual etc traditions it is very hard to see continental settlement on any sort of scale into the isles in this period although trade contact shown in metalwork, ore and influences must have been frequent"
That sentence is very debatable, in fact I debated that with Alan in the DNA forums some months ago. Many archaeologists support the existence of a cultural "Atlantic Bronze Age" area, see Kristian Kristiansen Europe Before History (1998) for an exposition of that with the relevant bibliography.

2nd Post
I am an archaeologist too (although my field of expertise is Roman archaeology, not Prehistoric) and I discussed Alan´s exposition on the subject of Atlantic Bronze, a classification he dismiss as lacking any base, but one supported by many archaeologists, so IMO Alan´s exposition is not "current mainstream" but rather a contested opinion, at least on that regard.

You can read I never wrote a single word about trade, I am sorry but ironically it is you who is mischaracterizing my words as If I wrote something on trade I didn´t. You maybe misread my posts or confused me with another person with those opinions.

So, you are claiming the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network (that is what it was, after all) was the dominant force in the peopling of the British Isles?

In what you quoted I see Alan acknowledging the existence of the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network (notice that he mentions trade, metalwork, etc.), but denying that there was an "Atlantic Bronze Age" for the British Isles in terms of "settlement, burial, ritual, etc.".

So, yeah, you mischaracterized what Alan wrote.

Better you should argue with him about it, but he has already said he's not posting here anymore, which is probably why you persist in taking shots you know will go unanswered.

[Jdean]

Personally I would be very hard pressed to argue with anybody with a trained background in any of the above mentioned fields, but I don't think Alan was setting up an argument, but merely stating what current mainstream archaeological thinking is on this subject. Obviously it would be nice to have some input from others in his field to see if this is an accurate picture.

I am an archaeologist too (although my field of expertise is Roman archaeology, not Prehistoric) and I discussed Alan´s exposition on the subject of Atlantic Bronze, a classification he dismiss as lacking any base, but one supported by many archaeologists, so IMO Alan´s exposition is not "current mainstream" but rather a contested opinion, at least on that regard.

Ialem, this all sounds very interesting, but unfortunately I'm reading about this debate second hand, could you do us a favour and post a link to the original argument as try as I might I've failed to track it down.

Cheers

Dave Stedman

[Jdean]

He is entitled to his opinion, but I do not disregard Indian oral history, either.

The legends of Spanish settlement in Ireland are frequently discussed, but I don't know if it is well known that us South Wallians also claim Spanish heritage, in fact my grand mother was talking about it just the other day, and she is certainly not on her own. This is used to explain our difference in appearance from the English , we are frequently darker of skin with dark curly hair. We’re shorter too but I think that may be more to do with d-i-e-t    (sorry about the dashes for some bizarre reason it kept editing the actual word out.

I have no idea of the source of this idea, but I suppose it is most likely inspired by the Irish stories.

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

"d-i-e-t (sorry about the dashes for some bizarre reason it kept editing the actual word out."

Some words cannot be used on this forum due to spam filters (d-i-s-c-o-u-n-t, etc...)

 

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

"Ialem, this all sounds very interesting, but unfortunately I'm reading about this debate second hand, could you do us a favour and post a link to the original argument as try as I might I've failed to track it down."

I don't know about the posting you are looking for, however, this one has some comical entries at DNA Forums. I simply googled "new life for the Milesian myth?" I'll never log back into DNA Forums again, but some of the stuff I google from that forum makes me laugh.

This industry really is a joke! Why not laugh!

DNA Forums - L21+ in Spain, New life for the Milesian myth?

[IALEM]

So, you are claiming the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network (that is what it was, after all) was the dominant force in the peopling of the British Isles?

In what you quoted I see Alan acknowledging the existence of the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network (notice that he mentions trade, metalwork, etc.), but denying that there was an "Atlantic Bronze Age" for the British Isles in terms of "settlement, burial, ritual, etc.".

So, yeah, you mischaracterized what Alan wrote.

Better you should argue with him about it, but he has already said he's not posting here anymore, which is probably why you persist in taking shots you know will go unanswered.

Can´t you read what I really wrote instead of inventing! Man you are obssesed, try to discuss with you is worthless as you simply ignore what I write and attack me on what I never wrote. I am sorry because the theme is of great interest for me, but I will not be posting anymore here. You can delete me from the L-21 project as well so it fits better your ideas. This is sad...

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

To IALEM

"This is sad..."

The whole industry is a joke! I have been saying that for awhile now. I don't take it seriously anymore. Laugh at it! That's what I'm doing these days.

[rms2]

So, you are claiming the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network (that is what it was, after all) was the dominant force in the peopling of the British Isles?

In what you quoted I see Alan acknowledging the existence of the Bronze Age Atlantic trade network (notice that he mentions trade, metalwork, etc.), but denying that there was an "Atlantic Bronze Age" for the British Isles in terms of "settlement, burial, ritual, etc.".

So, yeah, you mischaracterized what Alan wrote.

Better you should argue with him about it, but he has already said he's not posting here anymore, which is probably why you persist in taking shots you know will go unanswered.

Can´t you read what I really wrote instead of inventing! Man you are obssesed, try to discuss with you is worthless as you simply ignore what I write and attack me on what I never wrote. I am sorry because the theme is of great interest for me, but I will not be posting anymore here. You can delete me from the L-21 project as well so it fits better your ideas. This is sad...

Suit yourself. I read what you wrote.

You should argue with Alan, but if you don't want to post here, that's fine with me. You've posted plenty at dna forums already, if you are who I think you are.

I don't "delete" anyone from the project, but you are free to quit if that is what you want to do.

[rms2]

To IALEM

"This is sad..."

The whole industry is a joke! I have been saying that for awhile now. I don't take it seriously anymore. Laugh at it! That's what I'm doing these days.

It's a shame he's leaving, Glenn. You never quite got around to insisting on knowing exactly who he is and what his credentials are.

[vtilroe]

OT: I really wish some people in this HOBBY would refrain from being so heavy-handed with others.  It really is disgraceful, and shows poorly on the HOBBY in general.

[rms2]

OT: I really wish some people in this HOBBY would refrain from being so heavy-handed with others.  It really is disgraceful, and shows poorly on the HOBBY in general.

Vince,

I'm not exactly sure who that was directed at, but, anyway, there are some people we are going to encounter with whom we just don't get along.

I thought I was courteous enough with IALEM, but, obviously, he and I don't see eye to eye. He wasn't too courteous with me in his parting broadside (if that's what it was).

Mike posted some quotes from Alan that Glenn seemed not to like. Instead of countering Alan's statements, Glenn insisted on Alan's full name and curriculum vitae, things he never demanded of IALEM.

I would have been glad to get back to talking about the peopling of Ireland, but we couldn't seem to do that.

Alan said he would not be posting here anymore (for awhile at least), at which point IALEM mischaracterized what he had written (in my opinion, anyway), and, naturally, an Alan who said he was leaving couldn't very well answer.

That is the way things went.

I'm not sure what you would have had me do.

[Mikewww]

.. Mike posted some quotes from Alan that Glenn seemed not to like. Instead of countering Alan's statements, Glenn insisted on Alan's full name and curriculum vitae, things he never demanded of IALEM.

I feel kind of bad for Alan, poor guy.   I've never seen him be overbearing and he is quite willing to share his understanding of things, which I do think is quite credible, at least far as what archeologists are doing.   Anyway, I just shared his summary, without his permission I might add, and he gets blasted.   Hope he comes back.   I agree that we need to argue points, not discredit one another.

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

"It's a shame he's leaving, Glenn. You never quite got around to insisting on knowing exactly who he is and what his credentials are."

"Mike posted some quotes from Alan that Glenn seemed not to like. Instead of countering Alan's statements, Glenn insisted on Alan's full name and curriculum vitae, things he never demanded of IALEM.

Funny, No I didn't, but then again I wasn't the one arguing with him, either. I have no idea who he was except what he stated as a specialty: Roman Archaeology. It is a shame they both left, but people in other disciplines should perhaps think twice before jumping into genetic genealogy battles.

My point stands! This is not the archaeology industry. They obviously have a disagreement within their own industry that needs or requires attention. This is genetic genealogy. Insisting on archaeological answers may not be the best way forward in this industry. The genetic genealogy field should be open to everyone; however, specialists in other fields must provide something more than a re-hashing of their own industry arguments.

We do have a right to know who we are dealing with, and if you believe your archaeology expertise is valid perhaps you should have insisted on reviewing his professional repertoire to gain more information in your challenge of his ideas.

I have always liked you Richard, but you do appear a little obsessed with the whole R-L21 has a different path phenomenon.

Sorry for the troubles, but that is to be expected in this industry.

[vtilroe]

This is all extremely disturbing.  Genetic Genealogy requires input from multiple disciplines, because it can only be understood in context of other disciplines, be they archeology, anthropology, history, biology, physics, mathematics, chemistry, and so forth.  To eschew one in favor of another is nothing more than narrow-minded idiocy, IMO.