World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: Mike Walsh on May 01, 2009, 11:32:05 PM



Title: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 01, 2009, 11:32:05 PM
I thought this was a nice summary timeline of Ireland from a modern archeologist's point of view.  This is copied today from another forum:
Quote from: Alan the Archeologist
What archaeology tells us about Irelands peopling is this:

1. Mesolithic-Ireland was likely settled from north Britain c. 8000BC by peoples who probably were located in the southern/mid North Sea area prior to arriving in the isles.

2. Early Neolithic-Ireland and Britain seem to have been mainly settled very quickly and homogeneously by a single group who likely arrived from NE France to SE England and spread through the isles from there across a 400 year period. There was probably another more minor input into western Britain and Ireland from NW France.

3. Mid- Later Neolithic-Ireland had strong contacts with all of western Britain from Cornwall to the Orkneys indicated by exchange items. There was possibly some much lighter contact with NW France shown by similar ideas in monuments, art etc although this was shadowy, did not extend to mundane artefacts and was clearly mainly contact rather than settlement.

4. Beaker period-Ireland suddenly became part of a really major network that extended beyond the isles for the first time. The beakers that have an agreed origin point to the Middle and Lower Rhine and south, eastern and northern Britain while the burial traditions and deposition habits of beaker are more like western Britain and NW France. It is suspected that Ireland's paramount position in NW European metallurgy came from Atlantic contacts via NW France. It seems likely that NW France is the common denominator or link between the NW European beaker types and the Atlantic burial and metallurgical traditions and it was likely crucial in terms of the beaker influence in Ireland.

5. Bronze Age-A lot of the mundane culture and burial traditions are purely insular with no continental parallels. There is a lot of similarity of mundane culture and ritual monuments/burial traditions within and between the isles but not much with the continent. The exception is metalwork where ideas seem to have flowed in a confusing network whose directions seem to have varied greatly over time although Central European influence seemed to steadily grow as the period went on. 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.

6. Iron Age-influences came from west-Central and Europe via Britain in the Hallstatt C and La Tene periods. The influences are relatively weak and like the Bronze Age largely confined to metalwork. Ireland is especially insular in terms of the monuments, burial traditions and mundane material culture and seems different from both the continent and Britain (which itself has a lot of insularity-house shapes etc). This has lead many to feel that no large scale invasions took place in the Iron Age in Ireland although I think there is enough to suggest some small scale. I would say the same is also true for Scotland and much of the rest of Britain.

In general I would think that most archaeologists feel that the main populating events were the Mesolithic and/or the Early Neolithic with a much lesser (but ultimately significant??) input in the beaker period, very little movement in the Bronze Age other than flotsam brought by elite contact (marriages, craftsmen etc??) and perhaps some small groups of war bands etc in the Iron Age. I doubt many archaeologists would disagree hugely with that summary.

You will note that Iberia is conspicuously absent from this summary which I would say few archaeologists would find much to disagree with.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Jean M on May 02, 2009, 03:01:50 PM
I thought it was excellent. Many thanks to Alan for taking the trouble.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 02, 2009, 03:49:15 PM
From The Celtic Realms, by Myles Dillon and Nora Chadwick, page 4:

Quote
The Celtic settlement of the British Isles is more difficult [i.e., than that of Iberia] to trace. It seems now that we must choose between two extremes. About 2000 BC came Bell-Beaker people, whose burials are in single graves, with individual grave goods. The remarkable Wessex Culture of the Bronze Age which appears about 1500 BC is thought to be based upon this tradition. The grave goods there suggest the existence of a warrior aristocracy 'with a graded series of obligations of service . . . through a military nobility down to craftsmen and peasants', as in the Homeric society. This is the sort of society which is described in the Irish sagas, and there is no reason why so early a date for the coming of the Celts should be impossible. We shall see that there are considerations of language and culture that tend rather to support it.

From page 214 of the same book:

Quote
If we suppose that the Celts emerge as a separate people about 2000 BC, Goidelic may be a very early form of Celtic, and Gaulish (with British) a later form; and the first Celtic settlements of the British Isles may be dated to the early Bronze Age (c. 1800 BC), and even identified with the coming of the Beaker-Folk in the first half of the second millennium. This was suggested by Abercromby long ago (Bronze Age Pottery ii 99) and more recently by Crawford, Loth and Hubert. It would mean a lapse of time, a thousand years, between the first settlements and the Belgic invasions that Caesar mentions, quite long enough to explain the absence of any trace of Goidelic in Britain outside the areas of later Irish settlement. It would accord well with the archaic character of Irish tradition, and the survival in Ireland of Indo-European features of language and culture that recur only in India and Persia, and, for language, in Hittite or in Tokharian dialects of Central Asia.

. . . If the earliest Celtic settlements date from the Bronze Age, the question whether the invaders were Goidels or Brythons does not arise. Linguistic features that distinguish the Brythons may be much later, some of them innovations . . . which spread from a centre on the Continent and never reached the 'lateral' areas of Ireland and Spain. Rhys suggested this long ago.

It is also interesting that a recent study of the T-13910 lactase persistence allele found that it increases in frequency as one moves north and west in Britain:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-04/1240758664 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-04/1240758664)

The T-13910 lactase persistence allele is thought to have arisen on the Eurasian steppe less than 10,000 years ago.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 02, 2009, 09:56:33 PM
Alan R's views on the Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland are well known. I don't get the constant re-hashing of the same old song. Yada, Yada, Yada, Irish Mythology and Irish Oral Histories are not accurate.

Oral history has a place in our historical analysis. I, myself, have delved into twentieth century oral history projects to gain better insight into past events. Those who fail to recognize the importance of, at least considering, the oral history of a people are doomed to biased analysis and interpretation.

The key phrase I take away from his below March 2008 posting on Rootsweb DNA L List is "current understanding". "Current understanding" in this industry at least is always evolving and maturing. Who knows what the "current understanding" in archeological circles will be next year or the year after that. With increased knowledge the "current understanding" of an industry changes or improves the current thinking within an industry.     

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2008-03/1206448799

From: Alan R <al_r25@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ethnoancestry is first to test for the new R1b SNP - S116
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008

"Current understanding of marine technology (new Irish book out recently) at this period basically rules out this sort of wide open sea crossing in the Mesolithic."

 


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 02, 2009, 10:56:42 PM
Here is another good tidbit from Alan.  He is not a linguist, but I find him very credible.   ... but if you like the Irish legends, brace yourself.   
I interpret that he is saying the Gaels were first (Indo-European speaking type anyway), not last.   He agrees with what I gather from Henry Hubert in the "The History of the Celts", the Goidels (early or proto-Gael) were first.
Quote from: Alan the Archeologist
......(I am certain all Celts spoke with Q at one point) or that the links were later and at a time when Q had basically become set in stone in Ireland and later P-Celts coming into Ireland accepted the Q form. The theory of P being in Ireland before Q is pretty much discredited these days. It in iitself is an O'Rahilly idea and he based that on the book of invasions, a very dubious source. It is likely that P-Celtic came into Ireland after 300BC from Britain and Gaul on a small scale but did not stick. I suspect that these settlers are assocaited with the La Tene material in Ireland. The term Ivernic for P-Celtic is very unfortunate. The Iverni or Errain had a name linked to the name of the island and probably were the late Bronze Age peoples and more than any of the groups almost certainly spoke the old Q-Celtic form. If anyone (temporarioy) brought P-Celtic to Ireland it was probably later Iron Age settlers like the Cruithin. Laigin, Fir Bolgs, Fir Domnainn etc. It is a great pity that O'Rahilly took up the book of invasions idea that somehow THE Gaels were a late final wave of Q-Celts who displaced P-Celtd. Linguists, historians and archaeologists have long since rejected O'Rahilly's ideas and his interpretation of the various peoples and his proposed sequence of invasions are rejected. His book has such prominance simply because all the progress since him has been published in a peacemeal fashion in journals etc rather than in a big single ''answer to everything' scheme in a large book like O'Rahilly. Many of his other ideas are long rejected too such as his ones about Tara being the early base of the Connachta etc. His equating of the Fir Bolg and Errain seems completely wrong too. He was a clever man but he tried to answer everyhting in one huge thesis and seems to have got a lot wrong through being over ambitious. Its a pity his book is still treated as a bible of Irish history and mythology by the general public when so much of it has been refuted in the couple of generations since he published..


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 02, 2009, 11:18:46 PM
He is entitled to his opinion, but I do not disregard Indian oral history, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujjars

Gujjar

"Some Gujjars also claim that the Gujjar caste is related to the Chechens and the Georgians, and argue that Georgia was traditionally called "Gujaristan" (actually Gorjestan)."


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 03, 2009, 12:11:59 AM
He is entitled to his opinion, but I do not disregard Indian oral history, either.
...
Agreed.  I don't think Alan is infallible, but he is credible.  I also actually think there must be something to the Milesian myth.  Albeit may not be a large group,   it seems like there must be some folks who've come up the Altantic Coast at some point.  Regardless, I think it is instructive to understand the archeological setting and linguistics.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 03, 2009, 01:06:49 AM
I'll take notice when he does actual genetic research or Y-DNA testing of ancient remains. Until then, for me, he is someone in another field imposing his views without doing the genetic work required in our industry. We can exchange ideas with other disciplines and listen to their opinions, but this belief that archeologists and linguists are expert geneticists is fallacy.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 03, 2009, 09:10:41 AM
Well, thus far, the genetic evidence runs counter to the stuff in the mythological Book of Invasions. It should not be totally disregarded perhaps, but it certainly appears to be the usual medieval effort to connect a people to the Bible - you know, Goidel Glas, a Scythian present at the fall of the Tower of Babel, etc. - and give them an ancient and heroic pedigree.

I would be happy if "Goidel Glas" was my y ancestor and an actual Scythian, but I really very seriously doubt it.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 03, 2009, 11:46:03 AM
I don’t believe it is totally accurate, either, but we can’t throw away the entire oral history of a people without considering its value. Does anyone even know Alan R’s last name? Anonymous analysis and interpretation in this industry should go extinct. Is he an archaeologist or student? Putting your surname forward with your theories should be compelled in this industry.   


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 03, 2009, 01:32:10 PM
I don’t believe it is totally accurate, either, but we can’t throw away the entire oral history of a people without considering its value. Does anyone even know Alan R’s last name? Anonymous analysis and interpretation in this industry should go extinct. Is he an archaeologist or student? Putting your surname forward with your theories should be compelled in this industry.   


[Alan's name removed by management]

I wouldn't regard the Book of Invasions as "the entire oral history of a people". It's a medieval book that was written in the 11th century. It seems unlikely to me it was passed down orally before that.

What support for that notion is there in older works?


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 03, 2009, 04:14:55 PM
Are you kidding? These were legendary narratives spoken and/or poetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seancha%C3%AD

Seanchaí

"In the ancient Celtic culture, the history and laws of the people were not written down but memorized in long lyric poems which were recited by bards (filí), in a tradition echoed by the seanchaithe."

OK, Alan R. is an archaeologist specializing in "impact assessment." My question is what makes him an expert in genetic genealogy? Please point me in the direction of his genetic or genealogical research! All I have ever seen from Alan R. is archeological analysis. We are not in the archaeological industry. We are genetic genealogist! My genealogical research can be found beginning at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nolenancestry/page1.html and my genetic research can be found at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nolenancestry/page12.html and http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/nolan/.     

[Alan's name and contact info removed by management]


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 03, 2009, 06:03:27 PM
No, I wasn't kidding. Where is the evidence that the material that went into the Book of Invasions has an unbroken connection to oral tradition?

It is one thing to have an oral tradition. It is another to claim a particular book is an accurate representation of it.

But I know I'm treading on dangerous ground. Some Irishmen seem to be particularly sensitive about that book.

I don't know what you mean by the rest of what you wrote. Alan Reilly is an archaeologist, so what he has to say on archaeology is worth reading. I don't recall anyone saying he is a geneticist or that what he writes is the last word in genetics. Besides, what Mike quoted from him above says nothing about any specific y haplogroups, as I recall. If what Alan wrote runs counter to the Book of Invasions, well, that's a problem for those who really like the Book of Invasions as history rather than as mythology.



Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 03, 2009, 06:37:01 PM
.... OK, Alan R. is an archaeologist specializing in "impact assessment." My question is what makes him an expert in genetic genealogy?
I agree that Alan R shouldn't be viewed as a genetic genealogist.  However, I do think understanding the archeology and the linguistics is helpful in terms of trying to understand how genetics relates to deep ancestry (not genealogy but deep ancestry).   If you'll notice, I haven't quoted him on any thoughts he might have related to mapping haplogroups to the situation.  On the other hand, I think it is valid to understand his perspective of the archeology.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 03, 2009, 07:02:20 PM
I’m not an Irish expert. I have already said I do not believe things are 100% accurate in the Book of Invasions, however, there are many sources of Irish Texts: Historical, Legal, and Genealogical. If you or others want to believe they are all fabrications, have at it. Argument is pointless in this industry. I would encourage more genealogical and genetic research in this industry, but all people seem interested in is haplotype comparison.

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/publishd.html#ihlg

Irish Texts: Historical, Legal, Genealogical


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 04, 2009, 07:28:31 AM
I’m not an Irish expert. I have already said I do not believe things are 100% accurate in the Book of Invasions, however, there are many sources of Irish Texts: Historical, Legal, and Genealogical. If you or others want to believe they are all fabrications, have at it. Argument is pointless in this industry. I would encourage more genealogical and genetic research in this industry, but all people seem interested in is haplotype comparison.

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/publishd.html#ihlg

Irish Texts: Historical, Legal, Genealogical


Who said that those things you mentioned above were "all fabrications"?

We were talking specifically about the Book of Invasions. Even that may not be 100% fabrication, but obviously much of it is mythological and not based in fact. It is interesting and entertaining, but I wouldn't rely on it as an accurate history of the peopling of Ireland.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 04, 2009, 05:53:54 PM
I just found this thread.  Although registered I have only posted once here before.  As to the subject of this thread, I only posted a short summary of the latest take of say the last 5 years on the peopling of Ireland. It is not my opinion or my research, just a summary of the latest I have heard and read.  Published books on the subject tend to lag behind by many years so I thought it would be helpful to give a summary of the latest thoughts on each period from journal etc.  Some is not all that new but there has been recent major changes in understanding of the Mesolithic and Neolithic initial settlement based on new Mesolithic sites at Howick and Crammond and new very early Neolithic houses in England as well as papers by Sheriden etc.

As for the mythology, that was just a summary of the way views on Irish mythology have gone over the last 30 years or more.  There was a belief that it should be studied from an Indo-European comparitive angle many decades ago which gave way to looking at it from the point of view of the classics in the last few decades.   The latter seemed to show a lot of influence from the bible, classics etc.  Again, I was only summarising what I know of experts work on it and its not my own opinion.

Anyway, as some have said, I have repeated the same stuff a few times on these subjects and its maybe getting old so I wont post again on these sites unless there is a big breakthrough.  I certainly do not want to look like I want archaeology to pull rank on this as nobody really has the answers to this all and there are no clear answers that nearly links evidence across all the disciplines.  Anyway. Good luck with your researches.   

Alan


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 04, 2009, 07:03:29 PM
Well, I for one like your posts very much and appreciate them, Alan. I don't think you repeat yourself at all. Your posts on Rootsweb have been some of the best I have ever read on that or any other venue. So, I hope you will keep posting here.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Jdean on May 04, 2009, 07:24:31 PM
Well, I for one like your posts very much and appreciate them, Alan. I don't think you repeat yourself at all. Your posts on Rootsweb have been some of the best I have ever read on that or any other venue. So, I hope you will keep posting here.


Informed opinion is always good and informed debate even better.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 05, 2009, 12:40:34 AM
"Informed opinion is always good and informed debate even better."

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! Give me a break! We are entitled to have access to the other persons genetic research to at least determine who they are and assess the validity of their opinions. Where is his genetic research?


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: IALEM on May 05, 2009, 06:27:21 AM
"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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Jdean on May 05, 2009, 06:31:04 AM
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! Give me a break! We are entitled to have access to the other persons genetic research to at least determine who they are and assess the validity of their opinions. Where is his genetic research?

Who Alan is appears to be known well enough by people who use this board to verify that he is a respected professional archaeologist. I don't think his desire for a certain amount of anonymity is that unusual, and the information that was removed was sufficient to track down quite large amounts of personal information.

Would you not say if you follow the argument that only people who have participated in personal genetic research can post arguments here, then also only people who have conducted personal archaeological and linguistic studies should be allowed to post on those topics, that could be a little limiting.

David Stedman



Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 05, 2009, 07:45:05 AM
"Informed opinion is always good and informed debate even better."

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! Give me a break! We are entitled to have access to the other persons genetic research to at least determine who they are and assess the validity of their opinions. Where is his genetic research?

Evaluate his arguments then and not his credentials. The argument is the thing, not the supposed authority behind it.

There is plenty of crap being spread around out there by people with Ph.Ds.

Why should someone have to reveal his full name and everything about himself to participate in these discussions?

I am just a lowly school teacher myself, with no real claim to fame, but I will toss in my two cents here and there. If what I say makes sense and can be supported, then that speaks for itself. If it doesn't, would my curriculum vitae alter that?


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 05, 2009, 12:05:18 PM
I’m not an archaeologist, and I don’t have a Ph.D. I have a Masters in History. Why in the world would I debate a professional archaeologist with my limited knowledge of that subject? Others may be more qualified to challenge his professional beliefs, but they should have the right to examine his professional repertoire to assess the validity of his claims.

“Would you not say if you follow the argument that only people who have participated in personal genetic research can post arguments here, then also only people who have conducted personal archaeological and linguistic studies should be allowed to post on those topics, that could be a little limiting.”

All I’m saying is that expertise in the archaeological and linguistics fields doesn’t necessarily crossover into genetic genealogy. People can say or do whatever they want. Serious genetic genealogist will provide access to their genetic and genealogical work.

“There is plenty of crap being spread around out there by people with Ph.Ds.”

Precisely, then why should we tolerate anonymity, too? We have a right to know who we are dealing with and examine their body of work.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Jdean on May 05, 2009, 02:40:35 PM
I’m not an archaeologist, and I don’t have a Ph.D. I have a Masters in History. Why in the world would I debate a professional archaeologist with my limited knowledge of that subject? Others may be more qualified to challenge his professional beliefs, but they should have the right to examine his professional repertoire to assess the validity of his claims.

“Would you not say if you follow the argument that only people who have participated in personal genetic research can post arguments here, then also only people who have conducted personal archaeological and linguistic studies should be allowed to post on those topics, that could be a little limiting.”

All I’m saying is that expertise in the archaeological and linguistics fields doesn’t necessarily crossover into genetic genealogy. People can say or do whatever they want. Serious genetic genealogist will provide access to their genetic and genealogical work.

“There is plenty of crap being spread around out there by people with Ph.Ds.”

Precisely, then why should we tolerate anonymity, too? We have a right to know who we are dealing with and examine their body of work.


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.

Also I would think that the study of movement of people via genetics, archaeology and development of language ought to find common ground. If there are areas of obvious disagreement then at least one of these fields should go and have another look at their arguments. However would I be going out on a limb if I said it looks like they are converging.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 05, 2009, 04:25:44 PM
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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 05, 2009, 11:06:29 PM
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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: IALEM on May 06, 2009, 02:20:58 AM



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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 06, 2009, 07:41:55 AM

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.



Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 06, 2009, 07:47:43 AM
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" (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=8270.50) 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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 06, 2009, 07:49:33 AM
Here's the second post regarding what Hubert had to say.

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

Quote
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:

Quote
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).


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: IALEM on May 06, 2009, 09:54:49 AM


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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 06, 2009, 11:26:33 AM


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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 06, 2009, 01:11:49 PM
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,


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: IALEM on May 06, 2009, 01:13:05 PM

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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Jean M on May 06, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
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. 


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 06, 2009, 07:33:18 PM

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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Jdean on May 06, 2009, 07:55:03 PM



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


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Jdean on May 06, 2009, 08:20:13 PM
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.




Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 06, 2009, 11:46:36 PM
"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...)

 


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 07, 2009, 12:37:23 AM
"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?



Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: IALEM on May 07, 2009, 02:35:32 AM

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...


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 07, 2009, 04:19:08 PM
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.



Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 07, 2009, 07:34:37 PM

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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 07, 2009, 07:58:16 PM
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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: vtilroe on May 07, 2009, 08:00:31 PM
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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 07, 2009, 08:15:57 PM
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.



Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Mike Walsh on May 07, 2009, 09:04:34 PM
.. 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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 07, 2009, 09:32:25 PM
"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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: vtilroe on May 08, 2009, 01:47:32 AM
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.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 08, 2009, 07:41:22 AM
"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.

You never challenged Alan's ideas, Glenn. You simply demanded his ID and his resume. Honestly, it was bizarre.

As for my "obsession", I don't think you know what you're talking about.

A "different path" from what or whom? Who has established the "path" of L21 so that I might be said to be offering something "different"?

What I generally post here is news about who has gone L21+ and where his ancestor came from. Otherwise, I have posted the views of Henri Hubert, Myles Dillon, and Nora Chadwick on the Beaker Folk and the arrival of the earliest Celts in the British Isles. Were the Beaker Folk L21+? Heck if I know! But it's a possibility they were. That's the best explanation or "path" I can think of right now, and the idea didn't originate with me; it was suggested to me by Rick Arnold, who recommended Hubert's book to me after he read it.

It's a shame this thread has gone the way it did.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 08, 2009, 10:47:23 AM
"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,"

My focus is genetic genealogy. It is not narrow minded to focus on a specific genealogy or the genetics of that genealogy. Your statement above is simply out of touch with reality. I'm supposed to consult "other disciplines, be they archeology, anthropology, history, biology, physics, mathematics, chemistry, and so forth" before I can study my own genealogical lineage. Every one of the WFN Surname projects must consult with all the above experts in those fields you mentioned before undertaking a genetic genealogical study.

What world are you living in? My God, what lunacy! 


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article5477636.ece

Radiocarbon dates indicate early Irish were just visiting

Times Online

The Times

January 9, 2009

Norman Hammond,

Archaeology Correspondent

“It seems possible that settlers from the European mainland sailed up the Irish Sea and around the Atlantic coast, settling in a number of separate locations,” McSparron says. A “significant element of colonisation must have been involved” in the beginnings of settled agriculture in Ireland."

Cormac McSparron
Archaeology Ireland 22 No. 3: 18-21

I’m not an archaeologist, and have provided the above only as an example of possible Irish migration in the past.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 08, 2009, 11:22:00 AM
"You never challenged Alan's ideas, Glenn."

I’m not an archaeologist!


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: vtilroe on May 08, 2009, 09:54:40 PM
"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,"

My focus is genetic genealogy. It is not narrow minded to focus on a specific genealogy or the genetics of that genealogy. Your statement above is simply out of touch with reality. I'm supposed to consult "other disciplines, be they archeology, anthropology, history, biology, physics, mathematics, chemistry, and so forth" before I can study my own genealogical lineage. Every one of the WFN Surname projects must consult with all the above experts in those fields you mentioned before undertaking a genetic genealogical study.
You do seem to love taking things out of context.
Quote
What world are you living in? My God, what lunacy! 
Hmm. Obviously not yours.  I don't suppose you've read this book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 09, 2009, 11:26:43 AM
This is not a social club! If you need a friend, get a dog or some other pet.


Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen on May 09, 2009, 12:16:29 PM
"You do seem to love taking things out of context."

I didn't take any thing out of context. You used the word "requires" or to be a necessary condition for genetic genealogy.

"Genetic Genealogy requires input from multiple disciplines,"

This thread is tiresome! I'm done with it!



Title: Re: Archeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland
Post by: rms2 on May 09, 2009, 02:50:23 PM
I am locking this thread.

Maybe Mike would like to restart it under a slightly different name. Then hopefully it can stay on track.