• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Cruthin


Alliance 109

Active member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
107
so I've been doing some reading. Adamson and some others, more reputable historians. The general consensus seems to be that there was but not really a separate people on this island who may or may not have probably been pushed out to Scotland by an invading horde of Gaels from southern Europe.

anyone?
 

Captain Con O'Sullivan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
985
There does appear to have been some kind of seismic social shift in Ireland, encoded in our mythology as the 'fir bolg' and the 'Danae'.

I reference mythology because its important in Ireland where written records don't go back far enough. Our traditional method of passing on history as stories so they will stay in our consciousness is too strong to ignore as a possible explanation of some social upheaval in the past.

I haven't read as widely as you have but I'm intrigued by our early history and that fabled struggle for power. I'd love to get some possible timeline and then start looking again at what we know of general European social history- are there any clues where mythology takes over from history as to who or where the 'fir bolg' or the Danae were?

If one looks at the maps of 'Hibernia' by Ptolomaeus they look childlike as Ireland is shown on the same natural latitude as Spain, which can't be right. Unless you look at the sea as a trading route which could easily explain why Ptolomaeus thought that Spain and Ireland are closer than they are in reality.
 

SamVimesBoots

Active member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
139
Adamson? Reputable? ROFL. Man's a raving loon.

The "celtic invasion" theory was invented by a bunch of 19th century Victorian English eejits and has been thoroughly demolished into tiny little pieces by an overwhelming weight of archaelogical and genetic evidence since.

It's Crown propoaganda, nothing more.

What did happen is that there was a cultural war that went on for 1,000 years. The Milesians, who may or may not have been from Spain, or maybe just picked up the culture by trading with Spain, were originally a small bunch but they had a powerful propaganda narrative, a more cohesive social structure, a more warlike nature and possibly most importantly the will to assimiliate than most other tutha of the time.

The Milesian plan was pretty simple - either through force of arms or by intermarriage, gain control of a tuatha, but leave most of the original derbhfine in place. Then gradually strip the tuatha's own history from them over a few generations, replacing this with a makey-uppy descent from Heremon, Eber, or Ir.

Milesian offshoots jumped across Ireland from Tara and did this everywhere e.g. the Eoghanachta and the northern Uí Neill. The long wars approx (500-1000AD) of the latter with the Ulaid confederacy have been elevated by propagandists like Adamson to "prove" the existance of a distinct "Ulster people" who are the "descendants" (more illogical leaps of faith) of the Planters. It's all nonsense and completely ignores the minor fact that at the same period in history Munster was racked with exactly the same cultural struggle.

Same people, two different religio/cultural philosophies. Exactly the same as today, really.

The fact that the insane and racist wibblings of Victorian madmen are still being used as the basis for peoples self-image just shows how completely warped and debased the Irish knowledge of their own history and culture has become under the malign influence of Ingerlund.
 

SamVimesBoots

Active member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
139
And the Tuatha de Danaan/Fir Bolg struggle predates the Milesian/Cruthin one by a good 2,000 years.

The latter has plenty of archaeological, genetic, and written evidence from the early Christian Monks to tell us what was really going on. The earlier struggle, which brought to an end the high civilisation of the Boyne Vally that built Newgrange etc, remains a complete mystery although again there is no archaeological or genetic evidence for an actual invasion. Again it's more likely to be a simple religio-cultural war between two factions of the same people.
 

Lao-Tse

Active member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
162
I'm not expert on this issue, but I'm sure the "Cruthin" were meant to be the
same people as the Scottish Picts.
 

Captain Con O'Sullivan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
985
I know that Scots (gallowglas) mercenaries were often hired by petty Irish kings and Irish gallowglas's hired by petty Scottish kings so it would be hard at this stage to separate influence, immigration and invasion.

I'm with SamVimesBoots on the whole attempt by a faction in Ulster to revise history away from the Plantations era and understand why. But its dangerous territory as Scotland itself was divided into Picts (east) and Gaels (west) at least up to the 11th and 12th centuries as far as I have picked up.

We are a peculiar nation. When we aren't actually fighting other people's wars we are busy introducing them at home.
 

SamVimesBoots

Active member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
139
I'm not expert on this issue, but I'm sure the "Cruthin" were meant to be the
same people as the Scottish Picts.
No, the Picts were completely seperate.

The Dal Riada clan who lived in what is now Co Antrim set up a colony in SW Scotland, specifically Galloway and Argyle, around the 6th century or so as they started to come under pressure from the Uí Neill in western Ulster to conform to the Milesian ways. The colony thrived and became much more powerful than the mother tribe, which led them into conflict with the Picts who at that stage controlled most of north and east Scotland. They were known as the Scotti, which back then actually meant "Irish"

The usual pattern of royal marriages to keep the peace eventually led to Kenneth MacAlpin in the 9th century, who was descended from both the Scotti and Pictish royal houses and really began the process of merging the two people into the Kingdom of Alba, thus creating what we now know as Scotland and the Scottish.

The "Cruthin" tribes (the Dal Riada, Dal Fiatach, Dal nAraidi mainly) of east Ulster eventually succumed to Milesian dominance after the battle of Craeb Tulcha in 1004AD.
 

AngusOg

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
15
Concur with the above. I would add that the origin of the Picts is pure speculation, but some historians believe they were a celtic tribe and may have intermarried with the Scotti prior to the Dalriadian colony being established.

Bottom line both Scotland and the northern part of the island of Ireland have been culturally linked for centuries and is not the sole preserve of planter, unionist sentiment.
 

Alliance 109

Active member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
107
The "Cruthin" tribes (the Dal Riada, Dal Fiatach, Dal nAraidi mainly) of east Ulster eventually succumed to Milesian dominance after the battle of Craeb Tulcha in 1004AD.
That seems to tie in with the general unionist idea that there was two different peoples on this island and the plantations were indeed a "home-coming" of sorts.
 

Joseph Emmet

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
311
I seem to remember reading that there were 3 waves of celtic nomads arriving in Hibernia at different times by different routes from the areas north of Greece. The Fir Blog followed by the de Danann followed by the Milesians. The Milesians migratory rout took them through Hispania. After the Milesians took control of the island and decided how to share the island that a defeated family in the north fled across the waters to Caladonia.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,438
I'm not expert on this issue, but I'm sure the "Cruthin" were meant to be the
same people as the Scottish Picts.
It's a Gaelic word which was used to refer to P-Celtic speakers i think. P-Celtic was spoken in Britain and to the best of my knowledge only Q-Celtic in Ireland, there may have been P-Celtic speakers originally in Ireland too but they would not have been 'pushed out' but assimilated, as every group to enter Ireland was... Well not quite every one, Adamson's people would be the obvious exception. We must not confuse a people or bloodlines with language here, even supposing the Gaelic language replaced a P-Celtic language that was here, this does not mean the people and their bloodlines were 'cast out', merely that their language was changed. Nor does it necessarily mean the P-Celtic one was here first... as i understand it Q-Celtic languages like Irish are believed to be more archaic (unchanged from the old root Celtic language), when a language is more archaic it may signify a very long period in isolation from other languages because the more contact you have with others the more bits of other languages become blended in to it leading to a branching (as when the original Celtic branched into Q and P parts), it doesn't mean it is 'older'... merely more unchanged.

That seems to tie in with the general unionist idea that there was two different peoples on this island and the plantations were indeed a "home-coming" of sorts.
Even assuming that they were 'expelled' 1500 or so years ago, how could anyone claim these plantation people (so many of whom bear Anglo-Saxon as well as Irish names) are the same ones expelled? The right to return after 1500 years also sounds eerily like some kind of loyalist Zionism.
 

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,250
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
Even assuming that they were 'expelled' 1500 or so years ago, how could anyone claim these plantation people (so many of whom bear Anglo-Saxon as well as Irish names) are the same ones expelled? The right to return after 1500 years also sounds eerily like some kind of loyalist Zionism.
Which is exactly what it is.
 

SamVimesBoots

Active member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
139
That seems to tie in with the general unionist idea that there was two different peoples on this island and the plantations were indeed a "home-coming" of sorts.
Clearly you simply ignored everything I wrote and decided to latch on to the one sentence that could be twisted to confrom to your warped understanding of history.
 

SamVimesBoots

Active member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
139
I seem to remember reading that there were 3 waves of celtic nomads arriving in Hibernia at different times by different routes from the areas north of Greece. The Fir Blog followed by the de Danann followed by the Milesians. The Milesians migratory rout took them through Hispania. After the Milesians took control of the island and decided how to share the island that a defeated family in the north fled across the waters to Caladonia.
There is zero evidence for these alleged "migrations". Almost all Irish people's DNA descends directly from the original hunter-gatherers who arrived here 10,000 years ago as the ice sheets retreated.

There were cultural battles between different ways of organising societies, yes, and it is very likely that the Milesian way of doing things was imported from Spain, but there were no mass invasions. End of story.
 

Ah Well

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
1,235
There's a VERY Lengthy Thread on here already following the "Blood of the Irish" Doc on RTE some time back which makes for interesting reading or perhaps merging with this Thread

Sorry, can't give a link ... can't seem to find it in "Search"
 

PetevonPete

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
177
Fairly ******************************g amazing statement that nearly all Irish people are descended from the island’s ancient hunter gather population when about 1.5 million of the Irish population are derived from people who arrived here within the historical period post 1400. The most recent research that I’m aware of points to a Pictish cultural zone spreading across what is now Scotland north of the Forth-Clyde line and most of what is now referred to as Ulster. This cultural unit of small kingdoms came into conflict with an opposing cultural unit which spread from the south (let’s not give these groups mythical names). Around 550, shortly after the complete domination of the Christian relgion on the island the southern Gaelic cultural entity became domainent. It would seem at least for a period that Pictish and Gaelic identities existed in both current day Scotland and Ireland. Gaelic identity survived in Ireland and the Highlands into the modern era. The plantations resulted in a large influx of Lowland Scots into Ulster that these people were related by genetics and culture to earlier populations in Ulster is self evident – the Cuthrin tale is an attempt to react against Gaelic supremacist cultural ideas that emerged in Ireland since the 19th century. It has just as much basis in reality as the myth of a united Gaelic Irish nation and national identity. Here again in this thread we are seeing the inability of people to get beyond the false concept of a Gaelic Irish indentity, which in its more virulent forms drags in Catholicism and ideas of a shared genetic background to the “true Irish”
 

Captain Con O'Sullivan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
985
It would be very interesting to see what a DNA database would say about us. Although I'd be loathe to suggest it given the obvious ability for some little chancer to flog the information on the open market.

There must be a hefty influence from Scandinavia because of the Viking influx, given that Dublin, Wexford and Waterford were pretty much founded by them.

I'd love to know what other strands there are in the population though and how closely those strands are related to groups around Europe. Didn't the Danes or the Icelanders do some kind of exercise like this a few years back?
 

SamVimesBoots

Active member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
139
It's already been done Con. Well, academic studies involving a few hundred people at least.

The thing is, most Lowland Scots and English were themselves primarily of ancient DNA with a smattering of Norse, Germanic and Norman...and the Normans were Norsemen so...

It all blends in really. Generally the same genes all across the islands, the genes of the original post-ice-age inhabitants (who were closely related/had the same ancestors as the modern Basques), with a strong Germanic influence in SE England and Norse influence in northern Scotland, both of which gradually peter out as you move west. By the time you get to Connaught and Munster they're barely discernible.

The only real mass invasion of new people in the last 5,000 years was the Anglo-Saxon-Jute one in SE England. The Normans and Norse were a small ruling class over the original population in the areas they held, and so have left only a marginal trace except in the Shetlands and Orkneys
 

Captain Con O'Sullivan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
985
Thats interesting Sam, ta. I suppose in the end it will be possible once enough DNA records are available across Europe against a timeline to be able to trace movements of people back as far as the iron age and beyond.

The Basque connection is a fairly fascinating one. In terms of language I'm told that only Hungarian is similar in structure to the Basque language but I don't have any academic references for that. Which might mean that movement eastward across Europe may have diverged into southern Europe and northern European strands but a similar parent if you go back far enough.

When I mentioned Ptolomeaus earlier I may have misattributed. I think I was recalling Heroditus' map which can be seen here.

Herodotus Map

From what I can see he would have made certain deductions from the accounts of travellers. I notice that he has Iberia (spain) next to a space on the map he calls Celtiia and shows no sea route to either England or Ireland. Interestingly, to the east and south of Celtiia is a land he refers to as Milenesia as far as I can make out.

I know Heroditus referred as the greeks did to the 'Keltoi' which was really only a name given to a group of tribes possibly moving east from the Le Tene culture of Switzerland. Looks like the alps could have been a crossroads for western moving tribes from the middle east or north africa encountering a barrier and maybe splitting in order to follow trade routes past the mountains, perhaps...
 
Top