Anyone catching this ? Good programme: seems to be saying we got here from Africa via Spain. Not a Celt amongst us.

Yep. Professor Stephen Oppenheimer wrote a very good book on this, called 'Origins of the British' which spends a lot of time on Ireland in particular, very good at debunking archaeology's 'Central European homeland' theory, and at tracing the migratory routes that led us here from the Basque Ice Age refuge. The old Leabhar Gabhála account is much closer to the DNA evidence than the misconceptions of the archaeologists for 200 years.

And there were Bears! In Leitrim!

The Atlantean Irish was not too far off the mark. Well done Dan Bradley on the Niall Naoighiallach y-chromosone discovery. Oul' Niall was a quare one for the breedin'.

coc wrote:

And there were Bears! In Leitrim!

I seem to recall that they found bear bones in Aliwee Caves in Clare as well.

Or possibly his lesser known younger brother, Randy Naoighiallach. I thought they overplayed this hand slightly.

Can't watch this prog obviously, but is Bob Quinn's old Atlantean thesis finding respectability?!

coc wrote:

And there were Bears! In Leitrim!

My late grandfather always said there were some rare bastes to be found in drumlin country!

Atticus wrote:

Can't watch this prog obviously, but is Bob Quinn's old Atlantean thesis finding respectability?!

Bob didn't get a mention but from the first part shown tonight there was strong indications that we're from Africa via the Basque country

This was an unconvincing and entirely superficial examination of what is a fascinating subject mixing, as it does, genetic research with prehistoric population movements and modern ethnic identity. Sending a gardener rather than an historian to do this work is typical of RTÉ's incapacity to address serious subjects at anything above the utterly vacuous level.

The central argument of the episode appears to be that the Irish are descended from the Basques. Diarmuid Gavin then uses these genetic links to suggest that there is therefore some truth to the ancient sagas after all.

The genetic links to Northern Iberia have been well known for some time. What Gavin failed to mention is that there are also very significant links in Ireland's genetic pool to other population groups across Europe. Indeed, the most significant links of all are to the broader European neolithic stratum. In addition, his representation of Lebor Gabála Erenn as some sort of historical treatise without considering its ideological and cultural context opens the door to the fallacious argument that late medieval manuscripts are a reliable guide to prehistory.

Furthermore, his suggestion that the genetic record provides "proof" that there was a real proto-historical High King called Niall Naoigiallach is preposterous, especially given current views amongst Irish historians that the High Kingship is itself a later medieval invention projected backwards into the prehistoric period.

I also found Gavin's reproduction of the discredited anthropological research of cranial measurement of the 1930's without addressing the very dangerous, racist ideology that this research supported to be an alarming omission.

It short, this programme lived down to my expectations of RTÉ.

Very lightweight stuff right enough. Gavin is no Kenneth Clark

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

Very lightweight stuff right enough. Gavin is no Kenneth Clark

It's a real shame because there a quite a few very good medieval historians working in Ireland that could have compared the genetic research and the saga material in a more interesting and more reliable way. But hey, who needs historians when you've got celebrities to front documentaries for you.

I found the section filmed in the Royal Irish Academy with the gardener studiously examining a medieval manuscript written in Middle/Old Irish and Latin and making notes on his researches typical of the faux-content and bolloxological analysis of this programme.

Desmond O'Toole wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

Very lightweight stuff right enough. Gavin is no Kenneth Clark

It's a real shame because there a quite a few very good medieval historians working in Ireland that could have compared the genetic research and the saga material in a more interesting and more reliable way. But hey, who needs historians when you've got celebrities to front documentaries for you.

I found the section filmed in the Royal Irish Academy with the gardener studiously examining a medieval manuscript written in Middle/Old Irish and Latin and making notes on his researches typical of the faux-content and bolloxological analysis of this programme.

They could have done a landmark series here exploring pre-history but I'm afraid it was made with an eye to selling it on. Killed an hour though.

Desmond O'Toole wrote:

This was an unconvincing and entirely superficial examination of what is a fascinating subject mixing, as it does, genetic research with prehistoric population movements and modern ethnic identity. Sending a gardener rather than an historian to do this work is typical of RTÉ's incapacity to address serious subjects at anything above the utterly vacuous level.

The central argument of the episode appears to be that the Irish are descended from the Basques. Diarmuid Gavin then uses these genetic links to suggest that there is therefore some truth to the ancient sagas after all.

The genetic links to Northern Iberia have been well known for some time. What Gavin failed to mention is that there are also very significant links in Ireland's genetic pool to other population groups across Europe. Indeed, the most significant links of all are to the broader European neolithic stratum. In addition, his representation of Lebor Gabála Erenn as some sort of historical treatise without considering its ideological and cultural context opens the door to the fallacious argument that late medieval manuscripts are a reliable guide to prehistory.

Furthermore, his suggestion that the genetic record provides "proof" that there was a real proto-historical High King called Niall Naoigiallach is preposterous, especially given current views amongst Irish historians that the High Kingship is itself a later medieval invention projected backwards into the prehistoric period.

I also found Gavin's reproduction of the discredited anthropological research of cranial measurement of the 1930's without addressing the very dangerous, racist ideology that this research supported to be an alarming omission.

It short, this programme lived down to my expectations of RTÉ.

Yep - I agree entirely with that - we have enough racist exceptionist
nationalists in this country at the moment without encouraging the rest
of the nation to jump on the bandwagon with what was a load of populist
tripe - but easy on the ear - sounds better than the fact that we, like
most of Europe are a bunch of fighting fit purebred mongerels
genetically speaking.

The Royal Irish Academy scenes were hilarious!! I loved the way he took a few little notes at the end of the scene.

Top marks for the Top Gear style editing too, very modern!!

Daniel O'Donnell and the Donegal senior panel should be condemned in the strongest possible terms for their participation in this racist exceptionist nationalist propaganda exercise.

*scrubs oneself with caustic soda.....*

Desmond O'Toole wrote:

This was an unconvincing and entirely superficial examination of what is a fascinating subject mixing, as it does, genetic research with prehistoric population movements and modern ethnic identity. Sending a gardener rather than an historian to do this work is typical of RTÉ's incapacity to address serious subjects at anything above the utterly vacuous level.

The central argument of the episode appears to be that the Irish are descended from the Basques. Diarmuid Gavin then uses these genetic links to suggest that there is therefore some truth to the ancient sagas after all.

The genetic links to Northern Iberia have been well known for some time. What Gavin failed to mention is that there are also very significant links in Ireland's genetic pool to other population groups across Europe. Indeed, the most significant links of all are to the broader European neolithic stratum. In addition, his representation of Lebor Gabála Erenn as some sort of historical treatise without considering its ideological and cultural context opens the door to the fallacious argument that late medieval manuscripts are a reliable guide to prehistory.

Furthermore, his suggestion that the genetic record provides "proof" that there was a real proto-historical High King called Niall Naoigiallach is preposterous, especially given current views amongst Irish historians that the High Kingship is itself a later medieval invention projected backwards into the prehistoric period.

I also found Gavin's reproduction of the discredited anthropological research of cranial measurement of the 1930's without addressing the very dangerous, racist ideology that this research supported to be an alarming omission.

It short, this programme lived down to my expectations of RTÉ.

All right, it was a crappy programme, full of racist "pure blood" nonsense. We can do much better here I think. So where do "the Irish" come from ?
I seem to remember reading that the population on the east of the country aren't genetically much different to the UK population ?

I also understand that there is a graduated Germanisation in Britain the further east you go. It stands to reason really, considering how settlement came in waves from the European mainland. And of course all humans emanated in waves from east Africa, so any talk of 'Irish' (or 'British' or 'Aryan' or whatever) is just lazy shorthand for distinguishing degrees of relatedness. There's only one race - the human race.

cactus flower wrote:

All right, it was a crappy programme, full of racist "pure blood" nonsense. We can do much better here I think. So where do "the Irish" come from ? I seem to remember reading that the population on the east of the country aren't genetically much different to the UK population ?

When dealing with issues of ethnic identity and sepculation as to origins its a really good idea to stick to what we do know. We know, for example, that Ireland was one of the last places in Europe to be settled by humans. The absolute boundary to settlement in Ireland is the last major Ice Age. In this at least the gardener was correct. While our neighbouring island was settled as far back as about 15,000 BCE, Ireland was settled during the mesolithic period in about 7,500 BCE.

This first settlement is a good illustration of the problem with the "waves" idea that coc mentions. Archaeologists used to argue, and some still do, that early settlement and later migrations to these islands came from mainland Europe to Britain and then Ireland in a East to West dynamic, producing the geographically gradated ethnicity that coc mentions.

Current thinking is very much different. The principal support for the idea of Ireland being settled from Europe via Britain rested on the claim that there was a landbridge between Britain and Ireland during the mesolithic period. We now know that this is untrue and that mesolithic settlement in Ireland came from the sea. That being the case it is entirely possible that such sea-born migration came directly from mainland Europe as from Britain. Just because Britain is closest does not mean it was the primary, let alone only, source of inward migration.

The next big migrations ocurred during the neolithic period and these brought agriculture to Ireland. There are significant changes to the archaeological record which show early land cultivation around 4,000 BCE or so, and the presence of domesticated animals indicates that it was not only people who migrated to this island at this time! We know that these were migrations rather than large-sale acculteration from abroad because there is an abrupt change to the archaeological record. In particular, analysis of the food residues contained in the earliest neolithic pottery indicates that these early Irish were consuming domesticated food from the very start. This is a very strong indicator of migration. The source for these migrations is indicated by the remaining rich neolithic archaeological record. This indicates a strong ans sustained cultural relationship with the whole Atlantic fringe of the European mainland from Iberia to Scandinavia and including Britain.

The genetic studies carried out at Trinity College suggest that at least one significant source for these neolithic migrations is North Western Iberia. These studies also reveal, however, that there is no significant genetic infusion into Ireland after the early neolithic. It is this evidence which puts paid to the claims in Lebor Gabála Erenn that the migration from Iberia was Celtic. The Celts did not appear as a distinctive culture in Central Europe until the Bronze Age.

That's fascinating and answers some of the questions in my mind. I didn't pick up that last night's programme suggested that the people from Iberia were Celtic as there were a few interruptions here.

How much work has been done using DNA as an indicator of origin, and indeed is it valid to try and do that anyway?

Is there the kind of east/west divide that I suggested in my question and are most on the west descended from the Iberian migrants ?

The question of language has come up here too, and the picture there was just as confusing.

cactus flower wrote:

That's fascinating and answers some of the questions in my mind. I didn't pick up that last night's programme suggested that the people from Iberia were Celtic as there were a few interruptions here.

The garderner didn't actually come out and say this explicitly but his conflation of contemporary Celtic identity with Lebor Gabála Erenn and Trinity's genetic research on origins gave that impression. This is part of the reason why I think the programme was such a failure. This area is hugely sensitive, as we all know, and Gavin's blundering simply added to the mass of confusion and myth-making that plagues questions of ethnic origins.

Quote :

How much work has been done using DNA as an indicator of origin, and indeed is it valid to try and do that anyway?

Is there the kind of east/west divide that I suggested in my question and are most on the west descended from the Iberian migrants ?

I don't think that genetic research advances the question of origins at all. It is useful as an indicator of prehistoric population migrations, especially given that the genetic record is time-stamped, as it were. However, I find the whole question of ethnic origins pretty troublesome and would argue that it is self-defeating and very bad historiography, let alone science.

Origins-thinking depends on the idea that there is a cohesive national identity, not necessarilly monolithic, but at least cohesive. Genetic markers present amongst an often minority proportion of the population are generalised to explain the genetic history and origins of the entire population. It's sloppy, dangerous and exclusivist. There is also the temptation, which reached its height in 1930's anthropological research, to use science as the primary tool to unerstand ethnicity.

There is certainly some genetic differentiation in Ireland which exhibits hot-spots for certain genetic markers, whether they are Iberian or latterly Germanic and Scandinavian. What is not true is the suggestion that there is some gradual gradation in genetic marker distribution from East to West. This is also very dangerous ground as I've heard this idea used to provide entirely spurious, pseudo-scientific backing for the claim that people are progressively more "gaelic" the further West you go in Ireland.

Quote :

The question of language has come up here too, and the picture there was just as confusing.

I'd argue that this issue is much more interesting. Ethnicity is a social construction which operates entirely independently of genetics. So is language. Examining the development and distribution of languages is a much better model, IMO, in understanding questions of ethnic identity and distribution than genetics. The limitation with language, of course, is that it is only of any use during the historical period.

What we know for sure is that the earliest language recorded in Ireland is a Celtic-language, i.e. what Damien McManus calls Primitive Irish and what is popularly known as Ogham. We know therefore that the population, or at least that part of it that was producing Ogham inscriptions, was speaking a language that is the direct linguistic ancestor of Nua-Ghaeilge. What we don't know, and are unlikely to ever know, is how the Irish became speakers of this celtic language. One of the fascinating problems with the Basque genetic link is that they don't speak an Indo-European language at all, never mind a Celtic one.

You might argue that this indicates that Ireland's Celtic language arrived post the neolithic migrations, but you're very much in the area of speculation at this point. If this is the case, however, we're left with the problem of how a non-Indo-European speaking population came to adopt a Celtic language and over what timescale.

How do we know what the first language was in Ireland? My impression about Ogham was that it was a written "alphabet" rather than a language?

My interest in the DNA evidence is not so much whether it "proves" any existing theory, but, within its limitations, what does it tell us? Is there anything published that gives a good account?

Yes, ethnicity as a concept seems to raise more questions than it answers. If you were to define it (not unreasonably imo) as requiring a shared linguistic identity, kinship/shared genes and a common culture, then would there be such a thing as Irish ethnicity?

coc wrote:

And there were Bears! In Leitrim!

There is a big one down at 28 Anglesea Street and its roaring its head off at the moment.

Seriously though, it was an interesting programme but as PES points out, it was a bit superficial.
At least the door is open for further television on the subject but lets not forget this is the age of Big Brother and The X Factor.

Perhaps TV is not a great medium for this kind of programme.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

coc wrote:

And there were Bears! In Leitrim!

There is a big one down at 28 Anglesea Street and its roaring its head off at the moment.

Seriously though, it was an interesting programme but as PES points out, it was a bit superficial.
At least the door is open for further television on the subject but lets not forget this is the age of Big Brother and The X Factor.

Perhaps TV is not a great medium for this kind of programme.

Biffo's da was a ber

cactus flower wrote:

How do we know what the first language was in Ireland? My impression about Ogham was that it was a written "alphabet" rather than a language.

The first recorded language in Ireland was Primitive Gaeilge. We have no evidence, unsuprisingly, for what the first language spoken in Ireland was. Ogham expresses a full function language. The Ogham inscriptions record personal names and a small amount of geneological information (father, population group). They also include very short fractal sentences, such as the equivalent of "here lies ..."

There is sufficient lingustic evidence contained on the extant corpus of ogham inscriptions which when combined with known linguistic development across the Indo-European language family enable us to reconstruct the Primitive Irish language and demonstrate its direct relationship to later forms of Irish, such as Sean, Mean and Nua-Ghaeilge.

Quote :

My interest in the DNA evidence is not so much whether it "proves" any existing theory, but, within its limitations, what does it tell us? Is there anything published that gives a good account?

Genetic evidence gives us an insight into prehistoric (and indeed historic) population movements. It also shows some correlation between social practices, such as those associated with patrynomic personal names, and genetic relationships. You can find further suggestions for reading here.

Quote :

Yes, ethnicity as a concept seems to raise more questions than it answers. If you were to define it (not unreasonably imo) as requiring a shared linguistic identity, kinship/shared genes and a common culture, then would there be such a thing as Irish ethnicity?

I agree with your comment that ethnicity raises more questions than answers. I'd part company with you WRT your definitions however. Irish people do not have a shared linguistic identity as the continuous hand-wringing over the Irish language demonstates. Similarly many different ethnic groups share the same lingustic identity. I'd also argue that kinship is largely irrelevant to ethnic identity outside of the question of the socialisation of children into a particular ethnic group. I, for example, have absolutely no kin or close genetic relationshp with the overall majority of Irish people, yet that doesn't make me, or them (!), any less Irish. I also think that the idea of there ever having been a common culture is pretty redundant at this stage.

Ethnicity is an entirely cultural phenomenon. I would argue that it has no genetic base whatsoever. Genetic similarities, for what they're worth, are a result of the social behaviours prompted by shared identity and social organisation. Genetic similarities are neither a marker of, nor a condition for any particular ethinic identity. Ethnicity is an "imagined community" (Benedict Anderson: 1983) whose members see themselves as as suficiently similarly to each other and sufficiently different to others to constitute a distinct ethnic, social group.