PDA

View Full Version : Tumbleweed hypothesis on settlement in Ireland, Britons and L21



Tumbleweed
10-31-2014, 11:49 AM
this defies everything you ever knew about Ireland and the irish. it has long been thought that the conflict between the southern irish and northern irish revolved around the south's claim that the majority of its people are indigenous gaels and that the north was invaded by non-indigenous british protestants during the plantations of Ireland. well, genetics has proven the exact opposite to be true. it turns out that gaelic raiders took welsh Christians to Ireland as slaves and that those slaves populated the majority of southern Ireland (yes, I said that the majority of southern Ireland is welsh, not gaelic). a Briton named saint Patrick was one of those slaves. in the second and third links that I posted, you can see a clear migration path from the east coast of ireland where the welsh were taken to the other regions of ireland further inland. there is some gaelic DNA in the south and along the west coast of Ireland, but it represents a smaller percentage of the DNA in southern Ireland overall.


"Declán is one of four Munster saints who had Lives written for them claiming that they founded monasteries and preached the Gospel in Munster before their younger contemporary St Patrick ever set foot in Ireland. These bishop saints, known since the 17th century as quattuor sanctissimi episcopi, also included Ailbe of Emly, Ciarán of Saigir and Abbán of Moyarney. The same claim was apparently made for Íbar of Beggery Island, according to the Life of St Abbán, which identifies him as Abbán's uncle and teacher, but no separate Life survives which offers any information to this effect.[11][12] The relevant Lives are all found in the so-called Dublin Collection (see above), which bears a stamp of editorial intervention.[13]

Their testimony, late though it seems, has often been treated in relation to the historical question of pre-Patrician Christianity in the south of Ireland. It has been argued that before the coming of Patrick, the south coast of Munster would have provided the most likely point of entry for the introduction of Christianity via Britain or via Gaul. The settlements of the Déisi and the Uí Liatháin in southwest Wales, as evidenced by the distribution of ogam-stones, provided an important connection between Britain and Ireland.[14] A key aspect of this overseas link, the import of slaves, usually British Christians, by Irish raiders would have directly exposed Munster to the influence of Christianity."


• Ó Cathasaigh, Tomás (1984). "The Déisi and Dyfed." Éigse 20. pp. 1-33.
• Ó Riain-Raedel, Dagmar (1998). "The Question of the 'Pre-Patrician' Saints of Munster." In
Early Medieval Munster. Archaelogy, History and Society, ed. M.A. Monk and J. Sheehan.
Cork. 17-22.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Britain.Deisi.Laigin.jpg

http://www.irishorigenes.com/sites/default/files/field/image/Ethnicity%20in%20Ireland2.jpg

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/74/f8/82/74f8829ef137b414c67799db63896102.jpg

http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/originals/71/4a/2f/714a2f767a7e92b0c28e643aa4e37411.jpg



EARLY USE OF LETTERS, OGAM AND ROMAN
“We now come to the question, When and where did the Irish
get their alphabet, and at what time did they begin to practice
the art of writing? The present alphabet of the Irish, which
they have used in all their books from the seventh century
down, and probably for three hundred years before that, is only
a modification — and a peculiarly beautiful one— of the Roman
letters. This alphabet they no doubt borrowed from their
neighbours, the Romanized Britons, within whose territory
they had established themselves, and with whom — now in
peace, now in war — they carried on a vigorous and constant
intercourse. The general use of letters in Ireland is, how-
ever, to be attributed to the early Christian missionaries.

But there is no reason to believe that it was St. Patrick, or
indeed any missionary, who first introduced them. There
probably were in Ireland many persons in the fourth century,
or perhaps even earlier, who were acquainted with the art of
writing. Already, at the beginning of the third century at
least, says Zimmer in his '* Keltische Studien," British
missionaries were at work in the south of Ireland. Bede, in
his history, says distinctly that Palladius was sent from Rome
in the year 431 to the Irish "who believed in Christ " — **ad
Scottos in Christum credentes." Already, at the close of the
third century, there was an organized British episcopate, and
three British bishops attended the Council of Arles held in
314. It is quite impossible that the numerous Irish colonies
settled in the south of England and in Wales could have failed to
come into contact with this organized Church, and even to have
been influenced by it. The account in the Acta Sanctorum, of
Declan, Bishop of Waterford, said to have been born in 347, and
of Ailbe, another southern bishop, who met St. Patrick, may be
looked upon as perfectly true in so far as it relates to the actual
existence of these pre-Patrician bishops.”--Douglas Hyde: 'A
Literary History of Ireland,' pages 105, 106

Tumbleweed
10-31-2014, 11:55 AM
It is entirely possible that the introduction of roman catholicism to ireland was the result of a dynastic struggle between a gaelic high king of Connacht (Turlough O'Conor) and a briton whose ancestors introduced celtic christianity to ireland as slaves of the gaels. If that is the case, then you can be sure that god may have played a part by making british ireland a roman catholic thorn in the side of its gaelic slave masters. If dermot macmurrough was a briton, then certainly he would have felt a kinship with his countrymen in wales. He would have known that the english nation came into being as a result of the gaelic and pictish invasions of britain, and he would have felt comfortable reaching out for support from a french roman catholic king of britain named henry II, so that he [dermot] could reclaim his own kingship over leinster and possibly over all of Ireland. As a briton who was descended from christian slaves, he wouldn't have felt guilt or shame as a traitor by doing to ireland what ireland had done to his country. Please keep in mind that in dermont's day, the ancient british celtic church had almost been entirely replaced by the roman catholicism of the anglo-saxons and normans. Any briton in ireland with knowledge of that must have considered the betrayal of britain to be more shameful than anything that they could have done to those who had initially invaded and settled there, which in turn resulted in more invasions of britain and the introduction of roman catholicism there. at any rate, the genetic record, archaeology and history all seems to be pointing in that direction.

this british DNA clade is even associated with Dermot macmurrough:

"R-P312-4f (R-L159.2). This subclade within R-L21 is defined by the presence of the marker L159 and is known as L159.2 because of a parallel mutation that also exists inside haplogroup I2a1 (L159.1). L159.2 appears to be associated with the Kings of Leinster and Diarmait Mac Murchada."

http://adamsfamilydna.com/2013/05/15/leinster-modal-l159-2-mutation/

"There are theories and speculation that our origin lay with the Damnonii of Ptolemy’s Geographica. There were three main area’s occupied by these peoples -

1.Domnainn or Fir Domnann of Leinster Ireland
2.The Dumnonii of Scotland – William Skene, the Scottish antiquarian, also mentioned the Domnonii of Scotland: “…the great nation of the Domnonii lay north of the Selgovae and Novantae, separated from them by the chain of hills which divides the northern rivers from the waters which flow into the Solway, extending as far north as the Tay. South of the Forth of Clyde they possessed the modern counties of Ayr, Lanark, and Renfrew, and, north of these estuaries, the counties of Dumbaton and Stirling and the districts of Menteith, Stratherne, and Fothreve, or the western half of the peninsula of fife. They thus lay in the centre of Scotland, and were the novae gentes whose territory Agricola ravaged.”
3.Domnonii of Wales and Cornwall. From, “Celtic Scotland, the Picts, The Scots & the Welsh of Southern Scotland.” by H.M. Chadwick: “In Ptolemy’s map four peoples are located in the south of Scotland. The points of the compass are erroneously stated (cf. p. 72); but it is clear that he means to place the Noouantai in Galloway and perhaps Dumfries, and the Uotadinoi (written Otalinoi?) on the east side, between the Forth and the Tyne. The Selgouai lie between these two peoples, and the Dumnonioi (miswritten Damnioi, Damnonioi) north of the Selgouai, extending apparently from Ayshire into Perthshire. All these peoples are usually assumed to be British. But only one of them survived in later times – the Votadini, known as Guotodin, Gododdin, in early Welsh poetry. The Dumnonioi were presumably of the same stock as their namesakes in Devon and Cornwall (cf. Chapter v above). The latter were certainly British in later times; so it is inferred that the northern Dumnonioi were likewise British. But, as we have seen, another branch of the same stock is found in Ireland – the Domnainn or Fir Domnann of Leinster – and it is apparently nowhere suggested that they spoke any language but Irish“

rms2
10-31-2014, 12:06 PM
I'm not an expert on Irish history or prehistory, but, I'm sorry, I don't see any evidence that convinces me that "the majority of southern Ireland is welsh, not gaelic" [sic].

Undoubtedly there were British slaves in Ireland (obviously, St. Patrick was one), but leaping from that to "the majority of southern Ireland is welsh, not gaelic" [sic] is quite a feat.

The maps you posted show nothing of the kind, despite Irishorigenes labeling part of the map of Ireland "Brythonic" (which I find dubious at best).

The Irish themselves settled in Wales and SW Britain during the late Roman Period and in the post Roman Period, but never in all my fairly extensive reading on that era have I ever encountered the claim that there was massive transport of British slaves to Ireland, so large it amounted to population replacement. How did the Gaelic language ever survive?

I smell some sort of agenda, with very little substance to support it.

Tumbleweed
10-31-2014, 12:26 PM
obviously the gaels wouldn't have needed to transport a huge number of welsh to Ireland in order for Ireland to be populated by them. anyone with half a brain cell in their heads must know that the populations of Britain and Ireland were considerably smaller in the third through fifth centuries AD than they are today. it just doesn't take long for a small number of slaves to pro-create into a large number of people over almost two millennia. as for the gaelic language, it probably didn't die out in the eastern and central regions of Ireland where the welsh were taken because the welsh were forced to speak gaelic early on, before assimilating with and eventually replacing their laigin slave masters. the archaeological, historical and genetic proof is on my side on this one.

Tumbleweed
10-31-2014, 12:42 PM
The maps you posted show nothing of the kind, despite Irishorigenes labeling part of the map of Ireland "Brythonic" (which I find dubious at best).

I smell some sort of agenda, with very little substance to support it.[/QUOTE]

those maps that I posted show the percentages of Y DNA that are distinctly gaelic in Ireland. now, there are some other clades of R1b L21 that are common in Ireland in equal or lesser percentages than are found in England and wales, but the fact that they are found as much if not more in England and wales than in Ireland makes them less distinct as being gaelic in origin.

Tumbleweed
11-01-2014, 03:59 AM
I'm not an expert on Irish history or prehistory, but, I'm sorry, I don't see any evidence that convinces me that "the majority of southern Ireland is welsh, not gaelic" [sic].

Undoubtedly there were British slaves in Ireland (obviously, St. Patrick was one), but leaping from that to "the majority of southern Ireland is welsh, not gaelic" [sic] is quite a feat.

The maps you posted show nothing of the kind, despite Irishorigenes labeling part of the map of Ireland "Brythonic" (which I find dubious at best).

The Irish themselves settled in Wales and SW Britain during the late Roman Period and in the post Roman Period, but never in all my fairly extensive reading on that era have I ever encountered the claim that there was massive transport of British slaves to Ireland, so large it amounted to population replacement. How did the Gaelic language ever survive?

I smell some sort of agenda, with very little substance to support it.

let me put it to you like this: the reason that a lot of irish people look really celtic is that they are more british than the English and scots. I'm not trying to feed people some kind of slant here. i assume that there has been a lot of transparency between the roman catholic and protestant divide in regard to whose DNA got tested and how those tests were administered, but archaeology, genetics and history all form a very solid body of proof concerning this.

Dubhthach
11-01-2014, 09:08 AM
What has Northern Ireland an entity that came into existence in 1922 (and by way doesn't include the most northern point of island of Ireland -- which is in "the south") got to do with early medieval Irish history. I'm confused!

Dubhthach
11-01-2014, 09:11 AM
Apologies to those of sensitive sensibilities, but this sums up the last couple of posts for me.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/48/48a3ac381a5470dc09ceac9a90ac381993d66d9af383b020fb 94207701dbb01d.jpg

Tumbleweed
11-02-2014, 08:36 AM
What has Northern Ireland an entity that came into existence in 1922 (and by way doesn't include the most northern point of island of Ireland -- which is in "the south") got to do with early medieval Irish history. I'm confused!

if the guy who owns you is giving you a run for your money, then someone has got to be your king, whether protestant or catholic.

Tumbleweed
11-02-2014, 08:44 AM
don't let the brit fan club sing your praises too loud... someone might hear us!

rms2
11-02-2014, 12:37 PM
You still have not offered any real evidence for your radical claim that most of the population of Ireland is descended from British slaves. You simply assert it and then surround the assertion with a cloud of verbiage that is essentially meaningless.

There is nothing in history, archaeology, or genetics to support such a claim.

Tumbleweed
11-03-2014, 03:50 AM
You still have not offered any real evidence for your radical claim that most of the population of Ireland is descended from British slaves. You simply assert it and then surround the assertion with a cloud of verbiage that is essentially meaningless.

There is nothing in history, archaeology, or genetics to support such a claim.

if dubhthach is really a gael, then I guess that they don't have to worry about anyone closing the gap on them. it looks like you'll have to sort it out yourself over there, dub! btw, this is my welsh dad:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m97/kingedward3rd/dadinchoir.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m97/kingedward3rd/64812_4905652873356_635703510_n-Copy_zpsea31a4d6.jpg

rms2
11-03-2014, 08:53 AM
Still no evidence to back up your assertion that most Irish are descended from British slaves. I am wondering why you came to this particular subforum to make such a claim.

Tumbleweed
11-03-2014, 11:07 AM
keep in mind that turlough o'conor was a king of Connacht and the high king of Ireland who considered Dermot macmurrough a threat to his kingship. the kings of Connacht belonged to the ui briuin kindred, who traced their descent from a half-brother, brion, of niall of the nine hostages. they were thus associated with the ui neill high kings of Ireland who were descended from niall. based on the map that I provided for the df49 (M222) clade of R1b L21 in Ireland, it is easy to deduce that turlough was probably a gael and that Dermot was probably a Briton, as the eastern and central regions of Ireland are the most british of all of its regions. it is also easy to deduce that the struggle between the two kings probably revolved around the history of slavery in Ireland, as niall is stated to have been involved in several raids on Britain, including the one in which saint Patrick was taken.

"The chronology of Keating's Foras Feasa ar Éirinn broadly agrees, dating his [Niall's] reign from 368–395, and associating his raiding activities in Britain with the kidnapping of Saint Patrick."

"Keating, quoting a Latin Life of Saint Patrick, says that Niall led Irish raids on Roman Britain, and in one of those raids Patrick and his sisters were abducted."

"Byrne suggests that Niall's death took place during a raid on Roman Britain."--Francis J. Byrne, Irish Kings and High-Kings, Second Edition, Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001, Chapter 5

"A poem by the 11th-century poet Cináed Ua Hartacáin in the Book of Leinster credits Niall with seven raids on Britain, on the last of which he was killed by Eochaid "above the surf of the Ictian Sea"

GTC
11-03-2014, 11:22 AM
All members are reminded to keep the tone of their posts civil and that ad hominem attacks are not permitted. This thread is being monitored.

Tumbleweed
11-03-2014, 11:52 AM
here are two maps that clearly identify the df49 (M222) clade of R1b L21 with niall of the nine hostages and the ui neill high kings of Ireland:


http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/74/f8/82/74f8829ef137b414c67799db63896102.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Www.wesleyjohnston.com-users-ireland-maps-historical-map1300.gif

rms2
11-03-2014, 12:55 PM
keep in mind that turlough o'conor was a king of Connacht and the high king of Ireland who considered Dermot macmurrough a threat to his kingship. the kings of Connacht belonged to the ui briuin kindred, who traced their descent from a half-brother, brion, of niall of the nine hostages. they were thus associated with the ui neill high kings of Ireland who were descended from niall. based on the map that I provided for the df49 (M222) clade of R1b L21 in Ireland, it is easy to deduce that turlough was probably a gael and that Dermot was probably a Briton, as the eastern and central regions of Ireland are the most british of all of its regions. it is also easy to deduce that the struggle between the two kings probably revolved around the history of slavery in Ireland, as niall is stated to have been involved in several raids on Britain, including the one in which saint Patrick was taken.

No, you're assuming what you are supposed to be proving.

There were Irish raids on Britain, and there were British slaves in Ireland. No one I know of disputes that. But it is a HUGE leap from that to the idea that British slaves replaced the native population of most of Ireland. Merely asserting the same thing over and over is not offering evidence that what you say is true.



"The chronology of Keating's Foras Feasa ar Éirinn broadly agrees, dating his [Niall's] reign from 368–395, and associating his raiding activities in Britain with the kidnapping of Saint Patrick."

"Keating, quoting a Latin Life of Saint Patrick, says that Niall led Irish raids on Roman Britain, and in one of those raids Patrick and his sisters were abducted."

"Byrne suggests that Niall's death took place during a raid on Roman Britain."--Francis J. Byrne, Irish Kings and High-Kings, Second Edition, Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001, Chapter 5

"A poem by the 11th-century poet Cináed Ua Hartacáin in the Book of Leinster credits Niall with seven raids on Britain, on the last of which he was killed by Eochaid "above the surf of the Ictian Sea"

None of that even remotely establishes that most of the Irish are descended from British slaves.

Are you claiming that only those who are DF49+ have ancestry that predates this raiding?

Honestly, it's hard to follow your argument, such as it is. It's not coherent.

Dubhthach
11-03-2014, 05:49 PM
What's ironic about all of this is that M222 probably arose in Britain anyways. What's funny though is all this talk about Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair (who was probably A259+) and Diarmait Mac Murchada makes little sense when it was Tairrdelbach son (Ruaidrí) who is the relevant party in the dispute.

As for the term Gael it's a loan word from Old/Archaic Welsh and in the context of Ireland mean's someone who speaks Irish, given that I can speak Irish, and my surname is of irish language origin ergo the term Gael can apply to me (just as it can apply to a R1a viking descendant in the outer hebrides who speaks Scottish Gaidhlig) ironically enough ye find men in the Gaeltacht who are in Haplogroup E who are if anything best example of a modern Gael ;)

Tumbleweed
11-04-2014, 05:17 AM
What's ironic about all of this is that M222 probably arose in Britain anyways. What's funny though is all this talk about Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair (who was probably A259+) and Diarmait Mac Murchada makes little sense when it was Tairrdelbach son (Ruaidrí) who is the relevant party in the dispute.

As for the term Gael it's a loan word from Old/Archaic Welsh and in the context of Ireland mean's someone who speaks Irish, given that I can speak Irish, and my surname is of irish language origin ergo the term Gael can apply to me (just as it can apply to a R1a viking descendant in the outer hebrides who speaks Scottish Gaidhlig) ironically enough ye find men in the Gaeltacht who are in Haplogroup E who are if anything best example of a modern Gael ;)

to believe that you can date population movements by haplogroups and their clades is ridiculous. If I belong to a specific haplogroup/clade, then dating my arrival in Dublin tomorrow would be impossible unless you knew my flight itenerary. clearly DF49 (M222) is gaelic in origin, as it exists in larger percentages in Ireland than it does in northern Britain. the link that I provided to that map shows that.

language isn't necessarily an indicator of ethnicity either. if it were, then I could learn gaelic in a few years' time and I would automatically be a gael. but we know that the majority of irish aren't gaels; they are Britons who were probably forced by their gaelic slave masters to abandon their language and adopt gaelic, before populating Ireland to such an extent that they became a threat to the people who took them there. the fight between turlough and dermot was probably a result of that. unfortunately the irish have lost their british identity and have become archrivals of themselves, hence the reason that people such as you are in forums such as this one, defending an ethnic group that you probably don't belong to and that you have no justifiable reason to defend as the descendant of british slaves.

"After the death of his older brother, Enna mac Donnchada Mac Murchada, Dermot unexpectedly became King of Leinster. This was opposed by the then High King of Ireland, Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair who feared (rightly) that Mac Murchada would become a rival. Toirdelbach sent one of his allied Kings, the belligerent Tigernán Ua Ruairc (Tiernan O'Rourke) to conquer Leinster and oust the young Mac Murchada. Ua Ruairc went on a brutal campaign slaughtering the livestock of Leinster and thereby trying to starve the province's residents. Mac Murchada was ousted from his throne, but was able to regain it with the help of Leinster clans in 1132."



[PS.--btw, the clade of r1b L21 that you belong to (DF41) isn't gaelic; it is british!]

rms2
11-04-2014, 09:03 AM
. . . but we know that the majority of irish aren't gaels; they are Britons who were probably forced by their gaelic slave masters to abandon their language and adopt gaelic, before populating Ireland to such an extent that they became a threat to the people who took them there . . .

No, we most certainly do NOT know that. In fact, it is utter drivel, as demonstrated by the fact that you make no effort to offer evidence to prove it. Instead, you merely repeat it over and over again, apparently believing that if, like an old shaman, you chant something often enough, if it will become reality.

Dubhthach
11-04-2014, 09:46 AM
Let somehow the higher up clades of DF49 seem to be absent from Ireland and only found in Britain and the continent. For example:
PF4341, ZP20, Z2980*, Z2976*

DF49 in Ireland is dominated by M222 more then that all the Irish M222 so far is S7073+, the only S7073- man that is so far known has ancestry in Scotland. Even within the various clades of S7073 the vast majority of Irishmen so far tested are positive for S660/DF105.

Of course what's even more obvious is that M222 parent Z2961 has plenty of examples of modern British (with welsh names for example) who are Z2961+ and negative for M222 and it's 23+ equivalent SNP's. It's fairly obviously that DF49 didn't arise in Ireland, if anything the foundation mythology of the Dál Cuinn points at an origin in Northern Britain.

This is reflective of archaeological record showing increased contact from Northern Britain into the northern half of Ireland (Leath Cuinn -- the half of Conn) in period after 200AD. This is the area that would eventually be controlled by branches of the Dál Cuinn, specifically the Uí Néill, Uí Briúin (which appear to be A259 and include bould Tairrdelbach) and Uí Fiachrach. What's ironic with your little rant is that there are a minimum level of Ogham stones in Leath Cuinn. Instead we see the vast majority of them in Leath Mogha, specifically in Munster (Cork and Kerry) and also Leinster. It's kinda weird that your so called Britons are writing in "Archaic Irish" whereas your so called "Gael masters" don't see to be.



http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/ogham-map.png

Oh look the area with highest concentration of M222 in Ireland (along with areas dominated by dynasts assumed to be M222+) maps onto area with most influence from Britain during the iron age! (shock horror!)

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/irelandlpria.jpg

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/images/Beehivequernstones.jpg

Oh by the way I'd like to show you any king that Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair didn't war against. After all he fought with both his father-in-law (King of Mide) and his uncle (King of Munster). In both cases he ended up dividing both provinces into two separate kingdoms, leaving that aside his main opponent in the early days was Domnall Ua Lochlainn. There's a reason why this period in Irish history is known as period where there were "High Kings of Ireland with Opposition".

Oh by the way I have no problem what so ever if DF41 arose in Britain, if it did so it was well over 2,500 years ago when the difference between insular celtic languages were minimum. After all as a L21+ man I'm really French (or is German) aren't I, if we take your logic to the extreme.

Jean M
11-04-2014, 10:36 AM
Of course what's even more obvious is that M222 parent Z2961 has plenty of examples of modern British (with welsh names for example) who are Z2961+ and negative for M222 and it's 23+ equivalent SNP's.

Thanks for mentioning this. I knew of one, but not the others. I'll take a look.

[Added] Looks like there are some with Irish origins too. Here is the full list of Z2961+, M222-, as far as I could extract it from https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-l21/default.aspx?section=ysnp

English surnames
Fancy
Landon
Pruner
Trainor
Warren

Irish
Carroll
Joyce
Kelly

Scottish
Johnston

Welsh
Powell

French
Leprost

Uncertain
Heil

Tumbleweed
11-04-2014, 12:06 PM
Let somehow the higher up clades of DF49 seem to be absent from Ireland and only found in Britain and the continent. For example:
PF4341, ZP20, Z2980*, Z2976*

DF49 in Ireland is dominated by M222 more then that all the Irish M222 so far is S7073+, the only S7073- man that is so far known has ancestry in Scotland. Even within the various clades of S7073 the vast majority of Irishmen so far tested are positive for S660/DF105.

Of course what's even more obvious is that M222 parent Z2961 has plenty of examples of modern British (with welsh names for example) who are Z2961+ and negative for M222 and it's 23+ equivalent SNP's. It's fairly obviously that DF49 didn't arise in Ireland, if anything the foundation mythology of the Dál Cuinn points at an origin in Northern Britain.

This is reflective of archaeological record showing increased contact from Northern Britain into the northern half of Ireland (Leath Cuinn -- the half of Conn) in period after 200AD. This is the area that would eventually be controlled by branches of the Dál Cuinn, specifically the Uí Néill, Uí Briúin (which appear to be A259 and include bould Tairrdelbach) and Uí Fiachrach. What's ironic with your little rant is that there are a minimum level of Ogham stones in Leath Cuinn. Instead we see the vast majority of them in Leath Mogha, specifically in Munster (Cork and Kerry) and also Leinster. It's kinda weird that your so called Britons are writing in "Archaic Irish" whereas your so called "Gael masters" don't see to be.



http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/ogham-map.png

Oh look the area with highest concentration of M222 in Ireland (along with areas dominated by dynasts assumed to be M222+) maps onto area with most influence from Britain during the iron age! (shock horror!)

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/irelandlpria.jpg

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/images/Beehivequernstones.jpg

Oh by the way I'd like to show you any king that Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair didn't war against. After all he fought with both his father-in-law (King of Mide) and his uncle (King of Munster). In both cases he ended up dividing both provinces into two separate kingdoms, leaving that aside his main opponent in the early days was Domnall Ua Lochlainn. There's a reason why this period in Irish history is known as period where there were "High Kings of Ireland with Opposition".

Oh by the way I have no problem what so ever if DF41 arose in Britain, if it did so it was well over 2,500 years ago when the difference between insular celtic languages were minimum. After all as a L21+ man I'm really French (or is German) aren't I, if we take your logic to the extreme.

once again, dating M222 by population movements isn't necessarily a good indicator of its origin. just because more people who inherit certain clades of it live in northern Britain rather than Ireland, and that the bulk who inherit the main clade live in northern Ireland, doesn't necessarily mean that it originated in northern Britain. the same would be true with Z253, which comprises a larger percentage of L21 in Britain than in ireland, but has a distinct clade (L226) that exists mostly in county Kerry. the fact that that clade exists mostly in Kerry doesn't necessarily mean that Z253 originated there, nor does it mean that L226 is distinctly gaelic per se. I am inclined to believe that, with Z253 comprising a larger percentage of L21 in Britain than in ireland, L226 could simply be a branch of a british clade. perhaps a mutation occurred as a result of someone marrying with a certain woman. that is why I didn't provide a link for a map of it earlier, but if I did provide one, then the only two counties of Ireland that would be over half gaelic would still be cork and Donegal.



[PS.--btw, I never implied that the only gaels in ireland who were involved in raids on Britain, and who took british slaves to Ireland, were associated with niall of the nine hostages and his descendant clans and kings. if you know anything about irish and british history, then you would know that the deisi and the laigin were also involved in that, and certainly irish history confirms that it was munster that was Christianized by the slaves who were brought to Ireland by them, which is the same region where all of those ogham stones are shown on the density distribution map that you posted.]

Tumbleweed
11-04-2014, 12:51 PM
Thanks for mentioning this. I knew of one, but not the others. I'll take a look.

[Added] Looks like there are some with Irish origins too. Here is the full list of Z2961+, M222-, as far as I could extract it from https://www.familytreedna.com/public...x?section=ysnp

English surnames
Fancy
Landon
Pruner
Trainor
Warren

Irish
Carroll
Joyce
Kelly

Scottish
Johnston

Welsh
Powell

French
Leprost

Uncertain
Heil




perhaps you could explain that to the millions of irish people whose family trees are filled with people whose surnames start with mc and mac and are furious with the DNA testing companies after they have been told that they are mostly british. perhaps surnames can be an indicator of origin, but in the case of british people who were taken to Ireland as slaves of the gaels almost two millennia ago, and who were forced to change their names and abandon the language that they spoke, then surnames and language wouldn't be a good indicator of ethnic identity.

Tumbleweed
11-04-2014, 01:29 PM
actually, based on the large density of those ogham stones in Kerry and cork in map that you posted, the people who raided Britain and took Britons as slaves to ireland may not have been the fir domnann (the laigin and galeoin) after all, as ogham inscriptions were clearly gaelic rather than british in origin (the british wrote using coelbren, not ogham). I find it hard to believe that Britons would take other Britons as slaves anyway.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3cHdQC1cXLEC&lpg=PA347&ots=T54X2BXwP9&dq=Gale%C3%B3in&pg=PA347#v=onepage&q=Gale%C3%B3in&f=false

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Britain.Deisi.Laigin.jpg

Jean M
11-04-2014, 01:29 PM
perhaps you could explain that to the millions of irish people whose family trees are filled with people whose surnames start with mc and mac and are furious with the DNA testing companies after they have been told that they are mostly british.

What unfortunately happens is that people expect to be told by a DNA company that their particular Y-DNA haplogroup originated in whatever country they identify as theirs. From the point of view of let's say a testee from the US with an Irish surname, his Y-DNA did originate in Ireland. That's where his surname is from. And once we get down to subclades, they will probably be happy to be told that their particular subclade originated in Ireland.

Up until recently, the testing companies generally couldn't be that specific. Once upon a time you would just find that R1b was all over Western Europe! With the recent rush of SNPs being discovered, we have reached an exciting time, where surnames can be matched to subclades. I really wouldn't worry about what was going on in the Iron Age. It doesn't make any difference at all to national identities today.

Mark D
11-04-2014, 02:40 PM
What unfortunately happens is that people expect to be told by a DNA company that their particular Y-DNA haplogroup originated in whatever country they identify as theirs. From the point of view of let's say a testee from the US with an Irish surname, his Y-DNA did originate in Ireland. That's where his surname is from. And once we get down to subclades, they will probably be happy to be told that their particular subclade originated in Ireland.

Up until recently, the testing companies generally couldn't be that specific. Once upon a time you would just find that R1b was all over Western Europe! With the recent rush of SNPs being discovered, we have reached an exciting time, where surnames can be matched to subclades. I really wouldn't worry about what was going on in the Iron Age. It doesn't make any difference at all to national identities today.

Didn't surnames originate many, many years after the split of the subclades? 12th or 13th centuries? And don't forget adoptees like myself; I'd hate to think my surname was being matched to someone else who tested Big Y.

I share 31 novel variants with only one other individual who traced his name and heritage to Ulster plantation, yet my putative birth father was French Canadian. This gentleman determined our MRCA was over 2,000 years ago, probably in northern France. Jean, I agree with your comment on the DF27 thread that "There are too many possibilities. I ended up just talking vaguely about 'later' arrival for the subclades."

By the way, I do appreciate your multi-disciplinary approach and eagerly look forward to reading your new book.

Jean M
11-04-2014, 03:28 PM
Didn't surnames originate many, many years after the split of the subclades? 12th or 13th centuries?

It depends which subclades we are talking about. :) With all the new SNPs we are getting down to sub-sub-sub-subclades with TMRCAs well within the era of surname development. That is not the case for everyone of course. The Welsh developed surnames generally from the Tudor period and some are centuries later. And not everyone is lucky enough to find himself in one of the subclades with a recent TMRCA.


And don't forget adoptees like myself; I'd hate to think my surname was being matched to someone else who tested Big Y.

Adoptees don't generally put their adopted surname into Family Tree Y-DNA projects as their ancestral surname! People put the earliest known ancestor in the male line. That's where the list of surnames above came from, as you will see if you follow the link I gave.

Mikewww
11-04-2014, 04:42 PM
We were taking over the Z255 category with a more generalized topic so I'll move it here.

jdean
11-04-2014, 05:39 PM
Thanks for mentioning this. I knew of one, but not the others. I'll take a look.

[Added] Looks like there are some with Irish origins too. Here is the full list of Z2961+, M222-, as far as I could extract it from https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-l21/default.aspx?section=ysnp

English surnames
Fancy
Landon
Pruner
Trainor
Warren

Irish
Carroll
Joyce
Kelly

Scottish
Johnston

Welsh
Powell

French
Leprost

Uncertain
Heil

No great uncertainty with Heil's ancestry Jean, his father, grandfather and great grandfather were all born in the same part of Hungary.

He's only got one match at FTDNA (1 off @ 36, the extent of that gent's testing) who is a Mr Hiles who's family traces back to Frankfurt in the early 18th C.


I'd say in all probability Mr Heil's line originated in Germany and migrated to Hungary.

BTW Joyce has one non surname match at 67 (7 off) who is a Mr Welsh, I know Welsh (and variations) is a very common Irish name but it's hard not to draw conclusions how people came by that name : )

He also shares his own branch on the DF49 tree with a Mr Thomas who he shares a very healthy number of noval SNPs with, 21 off the top of my head.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10258680/Draft%20DF49%20x%20M222%20Tree%20v15.png

Jean M
11-04-2014, 06:21 PM
@ jdean Thank you very much! It's a lot clearer to me now that I see the tree.


I know Welsh (and variations) is a very common Irish name but it's hard not to draw conclusions how people came by that name.

Agree entirely.

Dubhthach
11-04-2014, 06:46 PM
BTW Joyce has one non surname match at 67 (7 off) who is a Mr Welsh, I know Welsh (and variations) is a very common Irish name but it's hard not to draw conclusions how people came by that name : )

Joyce and Walsh (Welsh) are Cambro-norman names in Ireland that postdate 1169



SEÓIGH—VIII or XII—Sheoye, Shoye, Joie, Joye, Joy, Joyce; 'son of Joy' (probably a Norman personal name—Joie, Joye—corresponding to the Latin Letitia; but possibly merely a descriptive epithet bestowed on one of a joyous disposition). As a surname, it is of record in Ireland since the end of the 12th century, when the family seems to have come hither from Wales, and by the 16th century had become very widespread. The Joyces of Galway, according to Hardiman (History of Galway, pp. 14-15), came from Wales in the reign of Edward I. They acquired considerable tracts of territory in the mountainous district of Iar-Connacht, called from them Duthaigh Seoghach, or the Joyce Country, now forming the barony of Ross, in Co. Galway, where they are still very numerous. They were, according to Hardiman, a race of men remarkable for their extraordinary stature. The surname is now almost everywhere anglicised Joyce. Joy, the correct rendering, is almost peculiar to Kerry. Compare with Seóghas above.




BREATHNACH—X—Brathnagh, Brethnagh, Brehnagh, Brennagh, Brannagh, and by translation Walsh, Walshe, etc.; Irish 'Breathnach' (more correctly Breatnach), i.e., the Welshman; a descriptive surname applied generically to the early Anglo-Norman invaders who came hither from Wales; now one of our most numerous surnames. There are naturally many distinct families so called. See also de Bhailéis, de Bhailís, which is the Norman equivalent.
--
de BHAILÉIS, de BHAILÍS, de BHAILIS—XII—le Waleys, le Waleis, the Walish, Wallis, Wallace, Walsh, etc.; i.e. 'the Welshman'; the Norman equivalent of the Irish Breathnach, which see.


Should add that Walsh is probably the 2nd or 3rd most common surname in Ireland today.

dp
11-04-2014, 09:53 PM
[withdrawn - due to tenor]

alan
11-04-2014, 11:47 PM
Joyce is not native Irish.

alan
11-04-2014, 11:52 PM
I dont know its origins but Trainor or Traynor is almost exclusively a catholic surname today when found in the north of Ireland.

dsherry
11-05-2014, 12:25 AM
This site is great for surname linguistic origins and regional densities.
http://www.irishtimes.com/ancestor/surname/

dp
11-05-2014, 12:36 AM
This site is great for surname linguistic origins and regional densities.
http://www.irishtimes.com/ancestor/surname/

Welcome to Anthrogenica. I liked the regional density component :-)
David Powell
dp :-)
check out our Lounge (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23-Introduce-Yourself!).

Tumbleweed
11-05-2014, 01:19 AM
What unfortunately happens is that people expect to be told by a DNA company that their particular Y-DNA haplogroup originated in whatever country they identify as theirs. From the point of view of let's say a testee from the US with an Irish surname, his Y-DNA did originate in Ireland. That's where his surname is from. And once we get down to subclades, they will probably be happy to be told that their particular subclade originated in Ireland.

Up until recently, the testing companies generally couldn't be that specific. Once upon a time you would just find that R1b was all over Western Europe! With the recent rush of SNPs being discovered, we have reached an exciting time, where surnames can be matched to subclades. I really wouldn't worry about what was going on in the Iron Age. It doesn't make any difference at all to national identities today.

my point is that you can't always prove ethnic identity with surnames and the haplogroups/clades that are most common to them, and vice versa. perhaps you can do it a lot of the time, but it isn't necessarily a good way of proving ethnic identity all of the time.

Tumbleweed
11-05-2014, 01:34 AM
It depends which subclades we are talking about. With all the new SNPs we are getting down to sub-sub-sub-subclades with TMRCAs well within the era of surname development. That is not the case for everyone of course. The Welsh developed surnames generally from the Tudor period and some are centuries later. And not everyone is lucky enough to find himself in one of the subclades with a recent TMRCA.

please keep in mind that we aren't taking autosomal testing into account. the Y DNA haplogroup/clade that a man inherits is passed down only from father to son in a direct line. there are all kinds of SNP markers and DNA haplogroups and clades that would go unaccounted for if we were to only take the Y DNA haplogroups/clades that men inherit through their fatherlines into account.

rms2
11-05-2014, 08:49 AM
I dont know its origins but Trainor or Traynor is almost exclusively a catholic surname today when found in the north of Ireland.

I remember reading somewhere that Trainor/Traynor comes from a Gaelic word that means "strong arm" or "arm strong" and that some people with that name had taken the surname Armstrong.

Jean M
11-05-2014, 09:25 AM
I remember reading somewhere that Trainor/Traynor comes from a Gaelic word that means "strong arm" or "arm strong" and that some people with that name had taken the surname Armstrong.

Wikipedia has that story, which seems weird to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traynor_%28surname%29

In England Trainor/Traynor is a derivative of ME trayne 'to lay a snare, to set a trap' and so could be used for a trapper of animals.

MacCreanor clearly has a different derivation, which is given online as Mac Threinfir. So Irish Trainor/Traynor could be from threinfir (strong man) I imagine, if that online stuff is correct.

Dubhthach
11-05-2014, 09:31 AM
I remember reading somewhere that Trainor/Traynor comes from a Gaelic word that means "strong arm" or "arm strong" and that some people with that name had taken the surname Armstrong.

Here's what Woulfe has:


Mac THRÉINFHIR—IV—M'Crenir, M'Kreaner, MacCreanor, MacCranor, MacCrainor, Treanor, Trenor, Trayner, Trainor, Traynor, Tranor; 'son of Tréanfhear' (an Irish personal name, meaning 'champion,' literally, 'strong-man'); a well-known Ulster surname.


There's number of ways angliscation happened, either by phonetic (Ó Néill -> O'Neill), translation (the example of above becoming "armstrong") or assimilation (where a rarer name gets assimilated to more common name, or mapped to an english name)

Jean M
11-05-2014, 09:37 AM
the example of above becoming "armstrong"

What I would query is that Traynor became Armstrong or vice versa as Wikipedia claims. What is the evidence? If you have a perfectly good anglicization in 'Traynor', why switch to Armstrong? And vice-versa, why would Scottish borderers called 'Armstrong' decide to become Traynor in Ulster? I think the Wikipedia entry needs drastic revision.

Dubhthach
11-05-2014, 09:58 AM
What I would query is that Traynor became Armstrong or vice versa as Wikipedia claims. What is the evidence? If you have a perfectly good anglicization in 'Traynor', why switch to Armstrong? And vice-versa, why would Scottish borderers called 'Armstrong' decide to become Traynor in Ulster?

The Irish Times surname site has following:

Armstrong: numerous in Ulster, also Mayo/Sligo & Meath/Monaghan. Scottish. A famous Border name. Ir. Tréanlámhach. It can also be an anglicisation of Mac Thréinfhir and Ó Labhradha Tréan, q.v. SGG.

SGC. (for the reference) = Ó Droighneáin, M. & Ó Murchú, M.A., An Sloinnteoir Gaeilge & an tAinmneoir, Baile Atha Cliath, 1991
https://www.schoolbookstore.ie/schoolbooks/an-sloinnteoir-gaeilge-agus-an-tainmneoir -- obvioulsy used by teachers for Irish class (where children use irish language form of their name)

Woulfe (1923) also has following about the name Armstrong been "gaelicised"

TRÉANLÁMHACH, Armstrong; doubtless a translation of the English Armstrong.

Plus this surname (which is also mentioned on Irishtimes site)

Ó LABHRADHA TRÉAN—I—Trin-Lavery, Tryn-Lavery, Trim-lavery, Armstrong; i.e., 'Strong O'Lavery'; sometimes anglicised Armstrong, on the erroneous supposition that it is derived from 'tréan,' strong, and 'lám,' a hand (or arm).

Key thing about these is the use of the term Tréan as part of the name:
http://www.potafocal.com/Search.aspx?Text=tr%C3%A9an

Traynor is quite localised in South Ulster that's for sure going off the maps generated from Griffith valuation results as found on Irish Times search site

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/traynor.png

Amstrong bit more widespread but heavily concentrated in Ulster as to be expected given it's origins in Plantation period.
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/armstrong.png

What's interesting in the 1901 census is that there are 6,116 people with surname Armstrong on island of Ireland, 1,145 of whom are Roman Catholic, this would point to angliscation of Irish names towards Armstrong (though you could also have conversion to R.Catholicism, but it wouldn't make up majority). In same census there was 1,369 Traynor's (1,316 RC) and 1,161 Trainor's (1,056 RC)

Jean M
11-05-2014, 10:12 AM
What's interesting in the 1901 census is that there are 6,116 people with surname Armstrong on island of Ireland, 1,145 of whom are Roman Catholic, this would point to angliscation of Irish names towards Armstrong

OK. I'm convinced, but Wikipedia's presentation to the effect that all Irish Traynors belong to Clan Armstrong cannot be correct. Feel like fixing it? You have this stuff at your fingertips.

alan
11-05-2014, 11:13 AM
Problem with many surnames is there is a potential Irish, Scottish and English origin for so many and you really need more information on earliest known ancestor location to work out balance of probabilities. The Book of Ulster Surnames by Bell is a good books as it raises all the options and then sort of gives hints about balance of probabilities of the correct derivation. IMO its a far better book than McLysaght as it goes into a lot of detail about the options, ultimate sept origins etc but it only covers surnames common in the north of Ireland.

alan
11-05-2014, 11:21 AM
Another classic example of this problem, again involving Armstrong is that Lavery is believe to have been en-masse changed the Armstrong which has a similar meaning. However its complicated by other names like Lawrie Laurie etc which can be of Scottish origin. I think in Ulster its often purely a balance of probabilities based firstly on geography and (more shakily) on religious denomination but even then its full of pitfalls. Even names like Kelly, Murphy etc could in theory come from Scottish origins i.e. Kellys from Angus in Scotland or McMurphys from the western seaboard of Scotland. I think Ulster is a particular nightmare in that sense as its got that mix of Irish and Scots names with many duplicates.

rms2
11-05-2014, 12:43 PM
I'm not sure where I first read about the Trainor/Traynor to Armstrong surname switch, but it wasn't in Wikipedia. One of my third great grandmothers was an Armstrong (Sarah Ann Armstrong), and her father, Matthew Armstrong, is supposed to have come to Pennsylvania from Ireland around 1803. For awhile I even belonged to Clan Armstrong. I may have read about the Trainor/Traynor thing in one of its newsletters, but that would have been twenty or more years ago.

rossa
11-05-2014, 03:02 PM
Another classic example of this problem, again involving Armstrong is that Lavery is believe to have been en-masse changed the Armstrong which has a similar meaning. However its complicated by other names like Lawrie Laurie etc which can be of Scottish origin. I think in Ulster its often purely a balance of probabilities based firstly on geography and (more shakily) on religious denomination but even then its full of pitfalls. Even names like Kelly, Murphy etc could in theory come from Scottish origins i.e. Kellys from Angus in Scotland or McMurphys from the western seaboard of Scotland. I think Ulster is a particular nightmare in that sense as its got that mix of Irish and Scots names with many duplicates.

That's what I found out, my closest matches at FTDNA are those with Scottish surnames (McMillan) which has an almost identical gaelic spelling to Mullen.
Then there are other more distant ones that are completely random.
The adoption if surnames would make an interesting study itself.

dp
11-05-2014, 08:53 PM
Are there any instances of the old Welsh prefix map- being preserved in any surnames, or was it uniformly altered to ap-?
Thanks,
dp :-)

avalon
11-06-2014, 11:44 AM
Are there any instances of the old Welsh prefix map- being preserved in any surnames, or was it uniformly altered to ap-?
Thanks,
dp :-)

The only one I can find in "The Surnames of Wales" by John Rowlands is MABE which derives from mab/map meaning son in Welsh. It is a name peculiar to Pembrokeshire in SW Wales.

Generally speaking, the Welsh adopted fixed surnames from 1500s onwards and the ap was eventually dropped. Even now though, you do occasionally find people who still use the old patronymic naming, eg. Rhun ap Iorweth.

Celtarion
11-06-2014, 10:24 PM
Are there any instances of the old Welsh prefix map- being preserved in any surnames, or was it uniformly altered to ap-?
Thanks,
dp :-)

We have the same situation in Brittany with the old Breton prefix mab- then changed to ab- having the same meaning as "son of".

jdean
11-07-2014, 12:18 AM
We have the same situation in Brittany with the old Breton prefix mab- then changed to ab- having the same meaning as "son of".

Ab is used in Welsh as well, but always in front of a vowel

Hence Bowen from ab Owen as opposed to Price from ap Rhys

Not really sure if this name derives from the Brythonic map but you've got to wonder at the distribution of the surname Mapp

2884

Tumbleweed
11-07-2014, 06:00 AM
i find it interesting how, apart from some of the pagan mythology in it, the book of the taking of Ireland (Lebor Gabála Érenn) seems to be very accurate when compared alongside archaeological records and genetics. much of the historical accounts in it were taken from nennius's work historia brittonum. the book states that Ireland was uninhabited for thirty years before the nemedians established themselves in Ireland. some of the nemedians went to Britain and became the ancestors of the Britons, while others went south to Greece and became slaves of the greeks. when they returned to Ireland 230 years later, they were known as the fir bolgs (aka, british fir domnann and fir galioin). those british fir bolgs also lived in southwest scotland and southwest England as the dumnonii tribes. they became the indigenous laigin of leinster and all of Ireland, before the tuatha de danann arrived in the west of Ireland. then the milesian gaels combined forces with the tuatha de danann to conquer Ireland and thenceforth Ireland became a gaelic rather british fir bolg stronghold. thanks to genetics, we now know that the people of Ireland lost their identity and wrongly assumed themselves to be mostly gaelic, as the majority of irish DNA is british fir bolg rather than milesian gael in origin. the british fir bolg population was further reinforced when gaelic raiders took welsh Christians as slaves to ireland during the third through fifth centuries A.D.


Nemed

Ireland is then uninhabited for 30 years, until a third group of people arrive. They are led by Nemed, who is also descended from Noah through Magog. They set out from the Caspian Sea in 44 ships, but after a year and a half of sailing, the only ship to reach Ireland is Nemed's. Also on board are his wife, his four chieftain sons, and others. During their time in Ireland, the Nemedians clear twelve plains and build two royal forts, and four lakes burst from the ground. They also win four battles against the Fomorians. After Nemed and many others die of plague, the Nemedians are oppressed by the Fomorians Conand and Morc. Each Samhain, they must give two thirds of their children, their corn and their milk to the Fomorians. Eventually, they rise up against the Fomorians and attack the Tower of Conand with 60,000 warriors (30,000 on sea and 30,000 on land), defeating Conand. Morc then attacks, and almost all of the Nemedians are killed in a tidal wave. Only one ship of thirty men escapes. Some of them go "into the north of the world", some go to Britain and become the ancestors of all Britons, and some go south to Greece.

Fir Bolg

Those who went to Greece were enslaved by the Greeks and made to carry bags of clay. After 230 years, they sail back to Ireland. They are known as the Fir Bolg (men of bags), and contain two sub-groups known as the Fir Domnann and Fir Gálioin. Led by their five chieftains, they divide Ireland into five provinces: Gann takes North Munster, Sengann takes South Munster, Genann takes Connacht, Rudraige takes Ulster and Slanga takes Leinster. A succession of nine High Kings rule over Ireland for the next 37 years.

Jean M
11-07-2014, 11:15 AM
apart from some of the pagan mythology in it, the book of the taking of Ireland (Lebor Gabála Érenn) seems to be very accurate when compared alongside archaeological records and genetics.

This bubble was burst long ago. The Lebor Gabála Érenn is not remotely accurate about prehistory, which its authors knew nothing about. It was made up from Genesis and early Christian works. It includes a few genuine names of Irish peoples, such as Fir Domnann, and the later kindred groups such as Eóghanachta.


much of the historical accounts in it were taken from nennius's work historia brittonum.

The earliest version(s) of bits of it have survived in the Historia Brittonum, but these will have come from Irish early Christian sources which don't survive and which were partial sources for the accounts which Lebor Gabála Érenn pulled together.

Jean M
11-07-2014, 11:37 AM
thanks to genetics, we now know that the people of Ireland lost their identity and wrongly assumed themselves to be mostly gaelic, as the majority of irish DNA is british fir bolg rather than milesian gael

Not so. The people of Ireland for a long time believed the fiction in the Lebor Gabála Érenn because they did not have modern scholarship, linguistics and archaeology to tell them that there was no soldier of Spain with three ships who brought Gaelic from Spain. Gaelic is a descendant of the earliest Celtic to arrive in the British Isles. It has more archaic features than Brittonic, which is not surprising because Britain was subject to more input from later waves of Celtic-speakers from Gaul who brought P-Celtic. Some P-Celtic very probably arrived in Leinster with Romano-British, but was later dissolved into Gaelic, probably when Leinster was taken over by the Uí Néill from Connaught. There might have been some vague recollection of that Uí Néill triumph involving a language shift, which ended up in the Lebor Gabála Érenn.

The arrival of Proto-Celtic in the British Isles I would date to c. 2200 BC. So which route it arrived by is irrelevant to modern concepts of "British" and "Irish". At the time the British Isles would have been seen as a really good source of copper, tin and gold. Whether people went down the Rhine and across the Channel to Britain and then hopped over to Ireland, or went down the Rhine and made straight for Ireland and the Mourne Mountains doesn't make one iota of difference. They weren't 'British' at this time. They were Bell Beaker and we don't know what they called themselves.

The R1b-L21 which dominates Ireland and the Celtic fringe of Britain today tells us that the source Celtic population of both islands was (mainly) the same. That does not mean that the Irish are really British, or that the Welsh are really Irish. There was a common source, followed by a lot of mixing between the two islands.

alan
11-07-2014, 12:10 PM
Am glad you answered that Jean. It seems the Milesian myth is fact-proof and will never be given up on no matter how much scholars, archaeology and genetics show it is a pile of dung

Jean M
11-07-2014, 12:22 PM
Am glad you answered that Jean. It seems the Milesian myth is fact-proof and will never be given up on no matter how much scholars, archaeology and genetics show it is a pile of dung

I may have to remove some stuff on it from the online http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/originstories.shtml as it is going into the book. In fact the whole page may have to come down. I'm still trying to work this out.

rms2
11-07-2014, 12:52 PM
I'm still puzzled by Tumbleweed's posts in this thread, which began in a thread over in the Z255 subforum. He began by claiming that most of the Irish, especially those south of Ulster, are the descendants of post-Roman Period British slaves. Now he is apparently claiming they are Nemedians who first resided in Britain (where they acquired British passports no doubt) before going to Greece, becoming slaves of the Greeks, and changing their ethnonym to Fir Bolg because of the bags of clay they were forced to carry and exchange for feta cheese and souvlaki.

The chief point seems to be to make most of the Irish British somehow.

But why? For what reason?

MikeWhalen
11-07-2014, 01:07 PM
sure seems to me alot of nonsense 'bait and switch' going on by the OP
anyone else notice the pattern?

2892

Mike

Tumbleweed
11-07-2014, 02:23 PM
This bubble was burst long ago. The Lebor Gabála Érenn is not remotely accurate about prehistory, which its authors knew nothing about. It was made up from Genesis and early Christian works. It includes a few genuine names of Irish peoples, such as Fir Domnann, and the later kindred groups such as Eóghanachta.



The earliest version(s) of bits of it have survived in the Historia Brittonum, but these will have come from Irish early Christian sources which don't survive and which were partial sources for the accounts which Lebor Gabála Érenn pulled together.

concerning the pre-historical elements of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, it is very accurate. it provides information about the milesian gaelic descent from princess scota who was of a member of the royal Egyptian house of the pharaos. we know for a certainty that the celts are descended from the Egyptians and that they fled from Egypt in separate waves before and during the general timeframe of the plagues and exodus. those who stayed behind were destroyed by the plagues, which is why the DNA profiles of modern day egyptians are so different than those of celtic people:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/arthwr/37862242/1950/1950_900.jpg

Egyptian necklaces of faience beads were found on a skeleton at tara, Ireland and in a burial mound in north molton, devon, both of which were dated to circa 1350 B.C.:

"In 1955, archaeologist Dr. Sean O’Riordan of Trinity College, Dublin, made an interesting discovery during an excavation of the Mound of Hostages at Tara, site of ancient kingship of Ireland. Bronze Age skeletal remains were found of what has been argued to be a young prince, still wearing a rare necklace of faience beads, made from a paste of minerals and plant extracts that had been fired.

The skeleton was carbon dated to around 1350 BC. In 1956, J. F. Stone and L. C. Thomas reported that the faience beads were Egyptian: “In fact, when they were compared with Egyptian faience beads, they were found to be not only of identical manufacture but also of matching design.

The famous boy-king Tutankhamun was entombed around the same time as the Tara skeleton and the priceless golden collar around his mummy’s neck was inlayed with matching conical, blue-green faience beads”. An almost identical necklace was found in a Bronze Age burial mound at north Molton, Devon."

several Egyptian style boats were found in Britain which were dated to the period leading up to the thirteenth dynasty rule of khasekhemre neferhotep I, who is believed by many to be the pharaoh of the exodus. ferriby boat #3 was dated to 2030 B.C., which preceded the arrival of scota and the milesian gaels to Ireland by centuries:

http://www.ferribyboats.co.uk/dating/

http://vineyardlabourer.info/chronology_of_egypt_and_israel.html

the Annals of Clonmacnoise states, “Ireland long time after the flood lay waste until about the year after the creation of the world 1969 and after the flood 313 years…” If the world was created some time close to 4,000 B.C., 1969 years after its creation would have been approximately the year 2030 B.C.--the same year that Ferriby boat #3 has been dated to in Britain. This would lend credibility to the argument that the indigenous peoples of both Ireland and Britain are the same people (the british fir domnann/dumnonii).

Tumbleweed
11-07-2014, 02:36 PM
This bubble was burst long ago. The Lebor Gabála Érenn is not remotely accurate about prehistory, which its authors knew nothing about. It was made up from Genesis and early Christian works. It includes a few genuine names of Irish peoples, such as Fir Domnann, and the later kindred groups such as Eóghanachta.



The earliest version(s) of bits of it have survived in the Historia Brittonum, but these will have come from Irish early Christian sources which don't survive and which were partial sources for the accounts which Lebor Gabála Érenn pulled together.

I think that the evidence speaks for itself:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/chriscolemanG3003_468x541.jpg

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2011/database/110725/victoria-beckham-300.jpg

rms2
11-07-2014, 03:46 PM
concerning the pre-historical elements of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, it is very accurate.

No, it's not. It's mythological and has very little if any basis in fact.



it provides information about the milesian gaelic descent from princess scota who was of a member of the royal Egyptian house of the pharaos. we know for a certainty that the celts are descended from the Egyptians . . .

This thread is starting to take on a sort of "whatever you do, avoid eye contact" quality.

There is no evidence that the Celts are descended from the Egyptians. For one thing, Celtic is an Indo-European language, and Egyptian belongs to an entirely different language family, Afro-Asiatic. Even if King Tut was R1b (do we know that for sure?), there is no reason to regard him as a progenitor of the Celts. Most Egyptian men belong to y haplogroup E1b1b, and R1b is a very small minority haplogroup in Egypt. Whether or not one accepts the biblical account as true, before you claim the original Egyptians were wiped out by the Mosaic plagues, remember that nowhere does the Bible say that those plagues killed every last Egyptian. In fact, it is clear from the Bible narrative that they did not.

I'm not sure there is much point in answering the claims of those who are convinced that The Book of Invasions is accurate. Faith in The Book of Invasions resides in a sort of mystical realm in which facts and evidence have little meaning.

dp
11-07-2014, 04:18 PM
removed .

dp
11-07-2014, 04:18 PM
Title is in error. I meant Hinxton-4 lived in the Isles 2000 ybp.
I dont know if it's within the context of this hypothetical thread, but here are the X-matches to Hinxton-4.
2893
Thanks to Felix for noting this connection to living people (GEDmatch kits)
dp :-)

Here are the Gedmatch id's and runs of homozygosity Felix generated.
Hinxton-2: F999921 (parents first cousins)
Hinxton-3: F999922 (parents second cousins)
HInxton-4: F999925 (parents not related)
HInxton-5: F999926 (parents half-siblings)

Jean M
11-07-2014, 06:29 PM
before you claim the original Egyptians were wiped out by the Mosaic plagues, remember that nowhere does the Bible say that those plagues killed every last Egyptian. In fact, it is clear from the Bible narrative that they did not.

It is clear from archaeology and linguistics. The Coptic language descends from Ancient Egyptian. It lasted long enough to get drowned in a wave of Arabic.

alan
11-07-2014, 06:42 PM
This is so much gibberish that it feels like a wind up IMO. Not even worth commenting on as there is not even a crumb of solid ground or reality.

alan
11-07-2014, 06:45 PM
Erich Von Daniken with his Mayan UFO landing strips has as much basis in reality as the Milesian myth.

Tumbleweed
11-08-2014, 07:20 PM
how do geneticists know that subclades proceed from haplogroups and not vice versa? how do they know that subclades aren't older than haplogroups and that migration paths aren't being dated properly due to a misunderstanding of the ages of subclades and haplogroups? if haplogroups are older than their subclades, then why are dead peoples' DNA being tested and found to belong to subclades that have gone extinct? surely if subclades are younger than haplogroups, then there would be instances in which those haplogroups had gone extinct before--or along with--the subclades that supposedly proceeded from them. but that hasn't been found to be the case.

i believe that subclades are older than haplogroups and that the phylogenetic haplogroup trees are being read the wrong side up. i also believe that often times younger haplogroups and subclades are being left in a trail behind the older haplogroups and subclades that extend further out along migration paths, which gives the appearance that the older haplogroups and subclades proceeded from them and are thence younger, and that geneticists are dating the migration paths improperly as a result. that in turn has resulted in geneticists providing dates in reverse for population migrations which contradict the dates that are provided in ancient histories. a perfect example of that would be the following account from the lebor gabála erenn, which states that the british nemedians/fir bolg preceded the tuatha de danann and milesian gaels to Ireland, and a map that shows how geneticists have improperly dated the DNA in eastern Ireland to be newer than that of the southern and western regions of it:


Nemed

Ireland is then uninhabited for 30 years, until a third group of people arrive. They are led by Nemed, who is also descended from Noah through Magog. They set out from the Caspian Sea in 44 ships, but after a year and a half of sailing, the only ship to reach Ireland is Nemed's. Also on board are his wife, his four chieftain sons, and others. During their time in Ireland, the Nemedians clear twelve plains and build two royal forts, and four lakes burst from the ground. They also win four battles against the Fomorians. After Nemed and many others die of plague, the Nemedians are oppressed by the Fomorians Conand and Morc. Each Samhain, they must give two thirds of their children, their corn and their milk to the Fomorians. Eventually, they rise up against the Fomorians and attack the Tower of Conand with 60,000 warriors (30,000 on sea and 30,000 on land), defeating Conand. Morc then attacks, and almost all of the Nemedians are killed in a tidal wave. Only one ship of thirty men escapes. Some of them go "into the north of the world", some go to Britain and become the ancestors of all Britons, and some go south to Greece.

Fir Bolg

Those who went to Greece were enslaved by the Greeks and made to carry bags of clay. After 230 years, they sail back to Ireland. They are known as the Fir Bolg (men of bags), and contain two sub-groups known as the Fir Domnann and Fir Gálioin. Led by their five chieftains, they divide Ireland into five provinces: Gann takes North Munster, Sengann takes South Munster, Genann takes Connacht, Rudraige takes Ulster and Slanga takes Leinster. A succession of nine High Kings rule over Ireland for the next 37 years.


Tuatha Dé Danann

Those who went into the north of the world are the supernaturally-gifted Tuatha Dé Danann (or Tuath Dé), who represent the main pagan gods of Ireland. They come to Ireland in dark clouds and land on a mountain in the west. They fight the Fir Bolg for the ownership of Ireland in the First Battle of Magh Tuireadh. The Tuath Dé are victorious. They offer the Fir Bolg a province of Ireland, and they choose Connacht. Nuada, king of the Tuath Dé, loses his hand or arm in the battle and is thus no longer fit to be their king. He is replaced by Bres (a half-Fomorian), who becomes High King of Ireland, but he neglects his duties and mistreats his people. After seven years, Dian Cecht the physician and Credne the metalsmith replace Nuada's hand/arm with a working silver one, and he re-takes the kingship. The Tuath Dé then fight the Fomorians in the Second Battle of Moytura. Balor the Fomorian kills Nuada, but Balor's (half-Fomorian) grandson Lugh kills him and becomes king. The Tuatha Dé enjoy 150 years of unbroken rule.

Milesians

The tale of the Gaels is now resumed. Íth, who has spied Ireland from the top of Breogán's Tower, sails to the island with a group of men. He is welcomed by its three kings: Mac Cuill, Mac Cecht and Mac Gréine of the Tuath Dé. However, he is killed by unnamed attackers and his men return to Iberia. The Gaels set sail with a great force to avenge his death and take Ireland. They are referred to here as the Sons of Míl Espáine (or Milesians). The name Míl Espáine comes from the Latin Miles Hispaniae ("soldier of Hispania") and is likely an invention of the Christian writers.[25][27] After they land, they fight against the combined forces of the Tuath Dé and Fomorians. On their way to Tara, they are met on three mountains by the aforementioned Banba, Fódla and Ériu – the wives of Ireland's three kings. Each goddess asks that the Gaels name the land after her. One of the Gaels, Amergin, promises that it shall be so. At Tara, they meet the three kings, who defend their claim to the joint kingship of the land. They ask that there be a three-day truce, during which the Gaels must stay a distance of nine waves from land. The Gaels agree, but once their ships are nine waves from Ireland, the Tuath Dé conjure up a great wind that prevents them sailing back to land. However, Amergin calms the wind by reciting a verse. The surviving ships return to land and the two groups agree to divide Ireland between them. The Gaels take the world above, while the Tuath Dé take the world below (i.e. the Otherworld) and enter the sídhe.

http://www.irishorigenes.com/sites/default/files/field/image/Ethnicity%20in%20Ireland2.jpg

MikeWhalen
11-08-2014, 07:40 PM
evidently, too much time passed since the last person gave him a meal....

2906

M

alan
11-08-2014, 09:55 PM
Reminds me of this old song

IRISH WERE EGYPTIANS LONG AGO, THE

I've studied things Egyptic
Those writings weird and cryptic
Upon the tombs that dot Sahara's sands,
I've solved each strange inscription
Left by each wise Egyptian
And hold the mystic secret in my hands:
The Irish were Egyptians long ago,
Just read between the lines and you will know.

CHORUS
It must have been the Irish who built the Pyramids
For no one else could carry up the bricks.
It must have been a Doyle
That dug the river Nile,
For no one but an Irishman would fight a crocodile.
I think those Micks were Turks,
Mohammedans and Gurks,
They speak of "Irish Turkey" till today,
Cleopatra was a coleen who came from Connemara,
She lost her nationality while roaming in Sahara,
So all the Hooligans and all the Dooligans
Must have been Egyptians long ago.

It must have been the Irish who built the Pyramids
For no one else could carry up the bricks.
It must have been a Doyle
That dug the river Nile,
For no one but an Irishman would fight a crocodile.
Now ev'ry Houlihan once drove a caravan
I'll say the same for ev'ry Mac and O
And when Moses went to Egypt and saw those Irish faces,
He took the name O'Calahan and chang'd it to Oasis,
So all the Hooligans and all the Dooligans
Must have been Egyptians long ago.

rms2
11-08-2014, 11:00 PM
how do geneticists know that subclades proceed from haplogroups and not vice versa? how do they know that subclades aren't older than haplogroups and that migration paths aren't being dated properly due to a misunderstanding of the ages of subclades and haplogroups? if haplogroups are older than their subclades, then why are dead peoples' DNA being tested and found to belong to subclades that have gone extinct? surely if subclades are younger than haplogroups, then there would be instances in which those haplogroups had gone extinct before--or along with--the subclades that supposedly proceeded from them. but that hasn't been found to be the case.

i believe that subclades are older than haplogroups and that the phylogenetic haplogroup trees are being read the wrong side up . . .

Er, ah . . .

Clearly you do not understand phylogeny.

And clearly this is pointless.

MikeWhalen
11-09-2014, 01:51 AM
Of course us Irish built the pyramids and such!
and we invented music
and our girls are the prettiest
and our whiskey is the finest
and our horses are the fastest
and our dogs are the loyalist
and our moms are the bestest

anyone that claims different is a fecking liar and will get punched in the nose!
2907
2908
2909
2910

:)

Mike
*thought I would raise the intellectual level of this trolls thread
:)
your welcome