Mythology & Folklore

[Edina Street]

Some people call it Mythology and Folklore, some call it Pseudo-history, but there are those that call it history.

Those that call it history likely believe that it is something passed down by Druid oral tradition.

There are those that actually believe that the Irish High King List dating back to Slaine mac Dela in 1514 is conventional Irish History.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Kings_of_Ireland

The same can be said of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Pre-Roman kings of Albion (Pre Roman Britain) which he attributes to dating back to Brutus of Troy in 1112 BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_kings_of_Britain

It seems far fetched, but can the Pre roman kings of Albion and Ireland be supported by conventional history?

[Kato]

Obviously not. Hence the term "legendary".

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Edina Street]

Obviously not. Hence the term "legendary".

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Academics have a different understanding of the word legendary than their students do.

The Students believe that a legend is in the same category as mythological.

Academics know that in actual fact Legendary means that it is a thing that is actually believed by some people, and may or may not be factual based, or based on a narrative that has grown wings (grown mythological elements).


A legend is a genre of folklore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore) that consists of a narrative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) featuring human actions, believed or perceived to have taken place in human history. Narratives in this genre may demonstrate human values (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values), and possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude_(literature)). Legend, for its active and passive participants, may include miracles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle). Legends may be transformed over time to keep them fresh and vital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend

In fact, academics consider everything passed down from Oral tradition to be legendary. However they know that not everything passed orally is a lie. The Druids taught orally, but did not write. Nobody is saying that every word that ever came out of a Druids mouth is a lie.


History preserved orally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition) through many generations often takes on a more narrative-based (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_history) or mythological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth) form over time,[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend#cite_note-26) an example being the oral traditions of the African Great Lakes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Kitara).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend#Oral_tradition

So, in this sense, everything we say that is informal, unofficial and not written, is legendary.

[Edina Street]

I know some people find it hard to believe that all those people in Ships would turn up on the coast of Britain and Ireland thousands of years ago.

Questions like, where would they come from? where is the evidence for groups of pirates shipping around over 3000 years ago? and all that, are very valid.

But on the other hand, in Ancient Egypt and Greece we have a group called the Sea Peoples that were chased out of the Med after causing the Bronze Age Collapse with their piracy, hit and run land invasions, and burning of cities, are thought to have gave inspiration to later Old Testament narratives such a Sodom and Gamorrah, and the Egyptians and Greeks ask an opposite question, where did they go?


The Sea Peoples are a hypothesized seafaring confederation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation) that attacked ancient Egypt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt) and other regions in the East Mediterranean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Mediterranean) before and during the Late Bronze Age collapse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse) (1200 BC – 900 BC).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-AK2013-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-Drews48-3) Following the creation of the concept in the 19th century, the Sea Peoples' incursions became one of the most famous chapters of Egyptian history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_history), given its connection with, in the words of Wilhelm Max Müller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Max_M%C3%BCller), "the most important questions of ethnography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography) and the primitive history of classic nations".[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-FOOTNOTEM%C3%BCller1888147-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHall1922-5)The Sea People included well-attested groups such as the Lukka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukka), as well as others such as the Weshesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weshesh) whose origins are unknown. Hypotheses regarding the origin of the various groups are the source of much speculation. Several of them appear to have been Aegean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_civilizations) tribes, while others may have originated in Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily), Sardinia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinia), Cyprus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus), and Western Anatolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia).
French Egyptologist Emmanuel de Rougé (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_de_Roug%C3%A9) first used the term peuples de la mer (literally "peoples of the sea") in 1855 in a description of reliefs on the Second Pylon at Medinet Habu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medinet_Habu_(temple)), documenting Year 8 of Ramesses III (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_III).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-FOOTNOTESilberman1998269-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-deRouge-7) In the late 19th century, Gaston Maspero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Maspero), de Rougé's successor at the Collège de France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8ge_de_France), subsequently popularized the term "Sea Peoples" and an associated migration theory.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-Drews1-8) Since the early 1990s, his migration theory has been brought into question by a number of scholars; it has been described as a "deeply problematic theory and one that has been largely dismissed".[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-AK2013-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-Drews48-3)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-Silberman-9)[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-Vandersleyen-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_note-Yoo_Zerbini_Barron_2018_p._2-11)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

Is it possible that the answer lies in mythology and folklore, and they went to Albion and Ireland via Celtiberia?

[AgentDaleCooper]

Is this heading in a conspiracy theory direction? If so, i will duly blow a gasket at Gaelic culture being appropriated by absolute bams. Apologies if jumping the gun though :aok:

[superfurryhibby]

I know some people find it hard to believe that all those people in Ships would turn up on the coast of Britain and Ireland thousands of years ago.

Questions like, where would they come from? where is the evidence for groups of pirates shipping around over 3000 years ago? and all that, are very valid.

But on the other hand, in Ancient Egypt and Greece we have a group called the Sea Peoples that were chased out of the Med after causing the Bronze Age Collapse with their piracy, hit and run land invasions, and burning of cities, are thought to have gave inspiration to later Old Testament narratives such a Sodom and Gamorrah, and the Egyptians and Greeks ask an opposite question, where did they go?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

Is it possible that the answer lies in mythology and folklore, and they went to Albion and Ireland via Celtiberia?


Probably not.

There was metal using technology in Britain and Ireland for well over a thousand years before the earliest dates for the "Sea People" you mention. There is literally no evidence to support any claim that they sailed to these Isles.

You mention oral tradition, but keep in mind that Ireland was Christianised around 1500 years ago, so there is no chance of any surviving Druidic oral tradition. The Priesthood of Iron Age Celtic speaking people was either annihilated by the Romans or replaced by Christianity in places like Ireland and Scotland where the Romans never ruled. The only surviving accounts are from the Classical world. It's a bit like a 19th century British colonialist account of the customs and beliefs of people from Africa. As in not to taken too seriously.

There is a huge amount of nonsense on line about the Celts, Druids etc. Much arises from ultra right wing north American heritage nutters. There is no academic cover up, no collusion to deny the truth. I prefer the actual history (and no, the King lists written down in early Medieval times are not credible history, they are origin myths and reflect beliefs that served the political hierarchies of the time.

Here's Ronald Hutton speaking about Celticism, myth and legend. He's a tremendous scholar.

https://youtu.be/I-Xqvp0PYLE

[Edina Street]

Probably not.

There was metal using technology in Britain and Ireland for well over a thousand years before the earliest dates for the "Sea People" you mention. There is literally no evidence to support any claim that they sailed to these Isles.

You mention oral tradition, but keep in mind that Ireland was Christianised around 1500 years ago, so there is no chance of any surviving Druidic oral tradition. The Priesthood of Iron Age Celtic speaking people was either annihilated by the Romans or replaced by Christianity in places like Ireland and Scotland where the Romans never ruled. The only surviving accounts are from the Classical world. It's a bit like a 19th century British colonialist account of the customs and beliefs of people from Africa. As in not to taken too seriously.

There is a huge amount of nonsense on line about the Celts, Druids etc. Much arises from ultra right wing north American heritage nutters. There is no academic cover up, no collusion to deny the truth. I prefer the actual history (and no, the King lists written down in early Medieval times are not credible history, they are origin myths and reflect beliefs that served the political hierarchies of the time.

Here's Ronald Hutton speaking about Celticism, myth and legend. He's a tremendous scholar.

https://youtu.be/I-Xqvp0PYLE

The dates for the Sea Peoples may not match the dates given for the arrival in Ireland, but they would for Albion.

The dates, for the expulsion of the Hyksos from Ancient Egypt do match those for Ireland however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I#Conquest_of_the_Hyksos

Whilst there is no evidence that Ahmose I chased the Hyksos any further than Canaan, and there is no evidence that the Hyksos fled any further than Canaan, it is quite simply not known where the Hyksos came from and fled back to in the first place.

Further, the Conquest of the Hyksos is also speculated to have gave rise to the Exodus narrative by certain academics.

So not only could it be speculated that the Hyksos campaign gave rise to the hypothesized Irish High King list, but also the Exodus?

And yes, Nicene Christianity began to spread across Ireland around the time you say. Any connection between the Church of St Peter and the Office of the High Priest of Ptah?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Priest_of_Ptah

I would also say that whilst there was maybe no evidence of shipping going on between the Northern Hemisphere and Ancient Egypt, there was definitely evidence of trade happening, with the Amber Roads definitely dating back to this period, and the Yellow Brick Roads stretching from the MED to as far North as you can go. (And no, I don't literally believe the Amber Roads to have been yellow brick)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Road

So maybe no evidence of anything concrete, but definitely some interesting conventional history to be had that could of course give rise to new theories.

P.S

It is in fact thought that Ireland did have High Kings by the time the Romans arrived on British shores, as one of them is written about in contemporary to the time Roman sources, when the Romans offered to finance and support this expelled Irish High King's (Tuathal Techtmar) campaign to recapture his land, in return for gaining themselves a friendly ally.


Taking the native dating as broadly accurate, another theory has emerged. The Roman historian Tacitus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus) mentions that Agricola (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnaeus_Julius_Agricola), while governor of Roman Britain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain) (AD 78–84), entertained an exiled Irish prince, thinking to use him as a pretext for a possible conquest of Ireland.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BAathal_Techtmar#cite_note-12) Neither Agricola nor his successors ever conquered Ireland, but in recent years archaeology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology) has challenged the belief that the Romans never set foot on the island. Roman and Romano-British artefacts have been found primarily in Leinster, notably a fortified site on the promontory of Drumanagh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumanagh), fifteen miles north of Dublin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin), and burials on the nearby island of Lambay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambay), both close to where Túathal is supposed to have landed, and other sites associated with Túathal such as Tara and Clogher. However, whether this is evidence of trade, diplomacy or military activity is a matter of controversy. It is possible that the Romans may have given support to Túathal, or someone like him, to regain his throne in the interests of having a friendly neighbour who could restrain Irish raiding.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BAathal_Techtmar#cite_note-warner-5)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BAathal_Techtmar#cite_note-13) The 2nd-century Roman poet Juvenal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satires_of_Juvenal), who may have served in Britain under Agricola, wrote that "arms had been taken beyond the shores of Ireland",[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BAathal_Techtmar#cite_note-14) and the coincidence of dates is striking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BAathal_Techtmar#Romans_in_Ireland?

So the question is not did Ireland have High Kings? It is, how far back do they go?

[Edina Street]

Is this heading in a conspiracy theory direction? If so, i will duly blow a gasket at Gaelic culture being appropriated by absolute bams. Apologies if jumping the gun though :aok:

I am not sure that the ability to revise history and seek to discuss ones own research and be proven wrong about the conclusions one may draw, is exclusive to bams. But you could also be correct. I will give it consideration, as it is possible that I may in fact be a bam.

If so, I apoligise for that. But I do enjoy reading, and beyond cutting a huge part of my brain out that constantly makes me explore possibilities and consider new ideas, I will find it difficult to stop drawing my own conclusions, and stop doing what I enjoy.

I am however puzzled by your anger regarding Gaelic culture being misrepresented, when the claim of the Irish High King list comes directly from the Irish Annals.


A number of Irish annals, of which the earliest was the Chronicle of Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Ireland), were compiled up to and shortly after the end of the 17th century. Annals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals) were originally a means by which monks determined the yearly chronology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology) of feast days (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_days). Over time, the obituaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obituary) of priests, abbots and bishops were added, along with those of notable political events. Non-Irish models include Bede (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede)'s Chronica maiora, Marcellinus Comes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellinus_Comes)'s Chronicle of Marcellinus and the Liber pontificalis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_pontificalis).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_annals#cite_note-CC69-1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_annals

So I'm sorry, but this "is" Gaelic Culture, and Scots Gaelic culture (Alba culture) claims to be descended from Fergus I, whom in turn is claimed to descend from Irish Gaelic High Kings, whom in turn are claimed to descend from Ancient Egyptian Queen Scotia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergus_I_(mythological_king)

Holyrood Palace has a portrait on their wall which they claim to be Fergus I.

Why do you think Gaelic culture is being misrepresented? Gaels claim that this is true British and Irish history before the invasion of Romans and then Saxons.

So please don't get angry by coming to the defence of Gaels, because they would be the first to thank you for your support, but would also advise you that Gaelic culture would in fact have it that Gaelic culture being a myth is a lie spread by ancient Saxons whom wanted Brythonics to believe that Saxons were the first Monarchs on British shores and that there was nothing before them.

I mean, I don't know if you realise, but there was a time at their peak when Gaels owned a little bit more than a piece of Ireland and some of the Orkneys, and were so widespread they were practically on the door step of Ancient Egypt.

27911
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul

You do know that the old Hibs badge and Irish harp is the lake of Galilee? Why? Because they claim that it was named by Gaels whom spread that far and wide and the lake of Galilee is etched in the collective memory of Gaels.

[superfurryhibby]

The dates for the Sea Peoples may not match the dates given for the arrival in Ireland, but they would for Albion.

The dates, for the expulsion of the Hyksos from Ancient Egypt do match those for Ireland however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I#Conquest_of_the_Hyksos

Whilst there is no evidence that Ahmose I chased the Hyksos any further than Canaan, and there is no evidence that the Hyksos fled any further than Canaan, it is quite simply not known where the Hyksos came from and fled back to in the first place.

Further, the Conquest of the Hyksos is also speculated to have gave rise to the Exodus narrative by certain academics.

So not only could it be speculated that the Hyksos campaign gave rise to the hypothesized Irish High King list, but also the Exodus?

And yes, Nicene Christianity began to spread across Ireland around the time you say. Any connection between the Church of St Peter and the Office of the High Priest of Ptah?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Priest_of_Ptah

I would also say that whilst there was maybe no evidence of shipping going on between the Northern Hemisphere and Ancient Egypt, there was definitely evidence of trade happening, with the Amber Roads definitely dating back to this period, and the Yellow Brick Roads stretching from the MED to as far North as you can go. (And no, I don't literally believe the Amber Roads to have been yellow brick)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Road

So maybe no evidence of anything concrete, but definitely some interesting conventional history to be had that could of course give rise to new theories.

P.S

It is in fact thought that Ireland did have High Kings by the time the Romans arrived on British shores, as one of them is written about in contemporary to the time Roman sources, when the Romans offered to finance and support this expelled Irish High King's (Tuathal Techtmar) campaign to recapture his land, in return for gaining themselves a friendly ally.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BAathal_Techtmar#Romans_in_Ireland?

So the question is not did Ireland have High Kings? It is, how far back do they go?


There's too much there to address in a short reply, but you're linking tenuous events with other tenuous events and creating a narrative which has no basis in archaeology or history. The Romans describing an Irish "Prince" in exile does not mean there were High Kings in Ireland. It means there were people with power the Romans (not known for their insight into social and political structures of peoples they called barbarians) could have backed to try and achieve an objective. One passage from a biography referring to a "Prince" does not prove there were High Kings in Ireland in the Roman period.

Prehistory is fascinating and lends itself to wild speculation, but I prefer evidence based approaches to archaeology.

[superfurryhibby]

I am not sure that the ability to revise history and seek to discuss ones own research and be proven wrong about the conclusions one may draw, is exclusive to bams. But you could also be correct. I will give it consideration, as it is possible that I may in fact be a bam.

If so, I apoligise for that. But I do enjoy reading, and beyond cutting a huge part of my brain out that constantly makes me explore possibilities and consider new ideas, I will find it difficult to stop drawing my own conclusions, and stop doing what I enjoy.

I am however puzzled by your anger regarding Gaelic culture being misrepresented, when the claim of the Irish High King list comes directly from the Irish Annals.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_annals

So I'm sorry, but this "is" Gaelic Culture, and Scots Gaelic culture (Alba culture) claims to be descended from Fergus I, whom in turn is claimed to descend from Irish Gaelic High Kings, whom in turn are claimed to descend from Ancient Egyptian Queen Scotia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergus_I_(mythological_king)

Holyrood Palace has a portrait on their wall which they claim to be Fergus I.

Why do you think Gaelic culture is being misrepresented? Gaels claim that this is true British and Irish history before the invasion of Romans and then Saxons.

So please don't get angry by coming to the defence of Gaels, because they would be the first to thank you for your support, but would also advise you that Gaelic culture would in fact have it that Gaelic culture being a myth is a lie spread by ancient Saxons whom wanted Brythonics to believe that Saxons were the first Monarchs on British shores and that there was nothing before them.

I mean, I don't know if you realise, but there was a time at their peak when Gaels owned a little bit more than a piece of Ireland and some of the Orkneys, and were so widespread they were practically on the door step of Ancient Egypt.

27911
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul

You do know that the old Hibs badge and Irish harp is the lake of Galilee? Why? Because they claim that it was named by Gaels whom spread that far and wide and the lake of Galilee is etched in the collective memory of Gaels.


Linking origin myths made up in medieval times and conflating it with actual history.

[Kato]

It seems far fetched, but can the Pre roman kings of Albion and Ireland be supported by conventional history?

The problem with your question is including the term "conventional history", which requires primary sources or least reports of primary sources from secondary sources.

There has been so much rubbish written about these stories, especially over the last 40 years, that the absence of primary sources is hardly noticed and rumour, hearsay and conflation of inventions and snippets has taken their place.

Tell us about some primary sources and conventional history can kick in.

That's not to say some kernels of truth can exist within ancient word of mouth but that ancient word of mouth is contaminated with a whole load of modern speculative crap.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Edina Street]

There's too much there to address in a short reply, but you're linking tenuous events with other tenuous events and creating a narrative which has no basis in archaeology or history. The Romans describing an Irish "Prince" in exile does not mean there were High Kings in Ireland. It means there were people with power the Romans (not known for their insight into social and political structures of peoples they called barbarians) could have backed to try and achieve an objective. One passage from a biography referring to a "Prince" does not prove there were High Kings in Ireland in the Roman period.

Prehistory is fascinating and lends itself to wild speculation, but I prefer evidence based approaches to archaeology.

So maybe Clan Chieftains more than Kings?

[Edina Street]

Linking origin myths made up in medieval times and conflating it with actual history.

It can have its benefits.

The only reason I know about Historical Celtiberians is because of the claim/myth that Erimon is descended from Iberian Kings.

I have no clue if Erimon was a factual king, nor if Celtiberians had kings of Iberia, but I do know that conventional history does have it that Gaels did indeed live in Iberia (which is Hibernian at one of its earliest etymological roots before becoming Hiberia) and Celtiberians did indeed flock to Ireland.

I only know this because of researching Irish mythology, and then trying to find out if conventional wisdom supports it to any degree.

So it is a good tool for learning conventional history.

What I will say however, is whilst I accept that they may be tales, the tales were definitely told by people that must have had a very good actual grasp on conventional history.

Whoever said in the 7th century that Erimon was descended from Spanish Kings, obviously knew that Celtiberians once inhabited Spain and flocked to Ireland en-mass.

[Edina Street]

The problem with your question is including the term "conventional history", which requires primary sources or least reports of primary sources from secondary sources.

There has been so much rubbish written about these stories, especially over the last 40 years, that the absence of primary sources is hardly noticed and rumour, hearsay and conflation of inventions and snippets has taken their place.

Tell us about some primary sources and conventional history can kick in.

That's not to say some kernels of truth can exist within ancient word of mouth but that ancient word of mouth is contaminated with a whole load of modern speculative crap.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Irish mythology can never be proven.

But it can be compared to conventional history, and then it can come down definitely not, unlikely, possible or probable.

Take the Great Conspiracy of 367 ad for example.


According to Ammianus, the following events occurred: In the winter of 367, the Roman garrison on Hadrian's Wall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall) rebelled and allowed Picts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts) from Caledonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonia) to enter Britannia. Simultaneously, Attacotti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacotti), the Scotti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoti) from Hibernia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia) and Saxons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons) from Germania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania) landed in what might have been coordinated and pre-arranged waves on the island's mid-western and southeastern borders, respectively
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Conspiracy

Some say that it was just a coincidence and loose bands of warring tribes just so happened to attack Britannia at the same time, whereas others insist that this must have been a highly coordinated and sophisticated preplanned and organised attack.

Objectors of this theory point to the fact that barbarians would not have the sophistication for a highly organised and coordinated attack.

Who was the Irish High King in the year 367 ad, according to Irish Mythology? Crimthann mac Fidaig


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimthann_mac_Fidaig

In the year 367 ad Crimthann mac fidaig is credited by Irish mythology of owning a Fortress in Cornwall, being related to the Welsh, being King of Caledonia, and owning land in Gaul.

That is the same areas that all the warring bands came from to attack Britannia and temporarly send the Romans back to Rome.

So, is it probable that this was organised by Crimthann mac Fidaig, and Irish Mythology is worth delving into? or is it more probable that it was just loose unconnected warring bands?

[Kato]

Irish mythology can never be proven.

But it can be compared to conventional history, and then it can come down definitely not, unlikely, possible or probable.

Mythology can proven if confirmed primary documents were discovered.

Conventional historians would compare the myth but would call the rest conjecture.




Objectors of this theory point to the fact that barbarians would not have the sophistication for a highly organised and coordinated attack.



Conventional historians wouldn't call them barbarians. There is evidence of of inter tribe pacts and organisations in dark ages. If any evidence arouse regarding the incident you describe historians would be delighted. It's conjecture at the moment.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Edina Street]

Mythology can proven if confirmed primary documents were discovered.

Conventional historians would compare the myth but would call the rest conjecture.





Conventional historians wouldn't call them barbarians. There is evidence of of inter tribe pacts and organisations in dark ages. If any evidence arouse regarding the incident you describe historians would be delighted. It's conjecture at the moment.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

There are other methods used for deciphering the past rather than just written primary sources.

Archaeology, Forensic studies, are other methods which spring to mind. Such is the case with Troy and the Trojan War, once thought to have been Greek Mythology but after Archaeological excavations now thought to have some kernels of truth.

I take your point about the barbarians. However many people that I have discussed this with are not historians, and do tend to just dismiss them as barbarians, but whenever I have discussed this on Historum, you're right, historians themselves do not refer to them as barbarians, and surprisingly they are also not dismissive of the subject, and much like yourself they say it is possible, but until we have more evidence it is simply conjecture.

So yes, you're correct., that is exactly what they would say, do say, and have said.

[superfurryhibby]

https://youtu.be/_uLMTzi88jM?si=gFF221uqT8pYloaD

https://youtu.be/-gRqi4gB2dQ?si=pWIAGaQ1_PdSvDr0


https://youtu.be/Yxcrebo8OmA?si=CsN4ZyHEocuPQv0t


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism


I've posted some links from Ronald Hutton. I would describe him as a pre-eminent scholar of folklore, mythology. He is deeply knowledgeable and challenges many established narratives.

Mythical Ireland is the work of Antony Murphy. He's not an academic, but his knowledge of Irish myth is excellent and he isn't one for pseudo-history.

I also attached a link to Wiki and the British Israelite movement. THey were/are pseudo historical , pseudo-archaeological proponents of the idea that the Gaels/early peoples of Britain were one of the lost tribes of Israel. They have a legacy that continues to this day. Some of the stuff you mention originates from these influences.

[AgentDaleCooper]

https://youtu.be/_uLMTzi88jM?si=gFF221uqT8pYloaD

https://youtu.be/-gRqi4gB2dQ?si=pWIAGaQ1_PdSvDr0


https://youtu.be/Yxcrebo8OmA?si=CsN4ZyHEocuPQv0t


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism


I've posted some links from Ronald Hutton. I would describe him as a pre-eminent scholar of folklore, mythology. He is deeply knowledgeable and challenges many established narratives.

Mythical Ireland is the work of Antony Murphy. He's not an academic, but his knowledge of Irish myth is excellent and he isn't one for pseudo-history.

I also attached a link to Wiki and the British Israelite movement. THey were/are pseudo historical , pseudo-archaeological proponents of the idea that the Gaels/early peoples of Britain were one of the lost tribes of Israel. They have a legacy that continues to this day. Some of the stuff you mention originates from these influences.


this is the stuff that does my nut in, thanks for sharing. some folk i know connect it to all the other conspiracy nonsense, and it all gets very anti-semitic and white supremacist quite quickly.


folklore and mythology is IMO very under-recognised in its importance, as it's essentially a millennia old interface between ourselves and nature. if you're into this stuff, it's definitely worth looking at the Irish and Gaelic courses on duolingo, as the languages are the absolute soul of the folklore - the amount of information packed into the vocabularies of indigenous languages is staggering, and cultural/linguistic homogenisation is at great risk of destroying this connection (or gift, some might say). Manchan Magan is very much worth checking out, he appeared on 'Word of Mouth' on Radio 4 last week talking about Irish and its connections to other cultures. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zdwq

When looking into all this stuff, there are two things one has to bare in mind IMO:

1) keep an open mind, and allow yourself to wonder literally anything - folklore is all about letting your imagination dance with the landscape.
2) don't ever come to a conclusion, or treat anything as a fact, unless the evidence is actually there.

I coined my own phrase in Gaelic to describe the relation between folklore and reality - "...neo mar gum be mar sin a bha e." In English - "...or as though it had been thus" (sounds way better in Gaelic, as most things do - especially place names!!) Bottom line - folklore facilitates our interactions with nature, and stores the information required to do this. They are like a user manual, in the form of a metaphor. Some of the content is historical, some of it is absolutely made up, and the fact that we can't know which is which is something we have to make peace with - even if it is quite fun to take a wild idea and run with it.

[superfurryhibby]

this is the stuff that does my nut in, thanks for sharing. some folk i know connect it to all the other conspiracy nonsense, and it all gets very anti-semitic and white supremacist quite quickly.


folklore and mythology is IMO very under-recognised in its importance, as it's essentially a millennia old interface between ourselves and nature. if you're into this stuff, it's definitely worth looking at the Irish and Gaelic courses on duolingo, as the languages are the absolute soul of the folklore - the amount of information packed into the vocabularies of indigenous languages is staggering, and cultural/linguistic homogenisation is at great risk of destroying this connection (or gift, some might say). Manchan Magan is very much worth checking out, he appeared on 'Word of Mouth' on Radio 4 last week talking about Irish and its connections to other cultures. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zdwq

When looking into all this stuff, there are two things one has to bare in mind IMO:

1) keep an open mind, and allow yourself to wonder literally anything - folklore is all about letting your imagination dance with the landscape.
2) don't ever come to a conclusion, or treat anything as a fact, unless the evidence is actually there.

I coined my own phrase in Gaelic to describe the relation between folklore and reality - "...neo mar gum be mar sin a bha e." In English - "...or as though it had been thus" (sounds way better in Gaelic, as most things do - especially place names!!) Bottom line - folklore facilitates our interactions with nature, and stores the information required to do this. They are like a user manual, in the form of a metaphor. Some of the content is historical, some of it is absolutely made up, and the fact that we can't know which is which is something we have to make peace with - even if it is quite fun to take a wild idea and run with it.

Yes, there is a real right wing, racial purity-white supremacist Celtic roots thing going on, especially in the USA. The same bams have attached themselves to things like modern day military order fantasy and the Knights Templar etc.

Worth also mentioning the Celto-Iberians. There is a lot of debate around this ethnic group. Caesar recognised them as a distinctive group in Spain. Edina has mentioned them in connection with aspects of Irish mythology. Their known historical provenance is the late centuries BC.

The Irish King lists give dates of c1800BC for the Tuatha deDanu and their Kingships. That's more than 1500 years before the emergence of Celto-Iberians into history. The Kings lists were the work of medieval Christian monks and were first written down some 2500 years after the events they relate to. They can't be taken seriously as history, but are fascinating.

Even events like the supposed migration of the Scots from Ulster to Argyll are questionable. There is not a huge amount of evidence to support the historical reality of something that was once almost written in stone (https://www.academia.edu/1368926/Were_the_Scots_Irish). And that's comparatively much more recent.

Patrick Gleeson discussed "Archaeology and Myth in Early Medieval Europe: Making the Gods of Early Ireland "

Far from being relics of prehistoric cult practices, many deities populating these landscapes may have been consciously invented for political, allegorical and exegetical reasons during the medieval period. . This precludes such evidence being utilised to reconstruct pre-Christian cosmologies. This has broad implications for research across European medieval archaeology that would seek to access ritual, belief and religion.

I studied Prehistoric Archaeology and Scottish Ethnology at Edinburgh University as an undergraduate and, for a spell, worked as a archaeologist professionally. I suppose this has a huge influence on how I view the past and how I respond to the pseudo-historical stuff. I find that whilst it can be harmless, there are sinister connotations too. The Nazis were keen on pseudo-archaeology and Aryan supremacy and we have already discussed the British Israelites and their unpleasant agenda. There are undertones of racism and white supremacist agendas are never far from the surface.

"British archaeological officer Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews runs the Bad Archaeology blog, which draws attention to the racist qualities of pseudoarchaeology (Bond 2018), as does Jason Colavito’s eponymous blog (Wade 2019). In the age of the internet, archaeologists and pseudoarchaeologists alike have increasing access to a public looking for answers. It is up to the real archaeologists to find innovative ways to take back the attention from the perpetrators of false, harmful pseudoarchaeology".

https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2019/12/08/combatting-pseudoarchaeology-in-the-internet-age/

[Edina Street]

Yes, there is a real right wing, racial purity-white supremacist Celtic roots thing going on, especially in the USA. The same bams have attached themselves to things like modern day military order fantasy and the Knights Templar etc.

Those bams hijacked a real academic theory, which initially began with the Younger Dryas mass migration theory out of lands in the Northern Hemisphere which lead to a Nomadic culture, beginning with the Ahrensburg Culture, and spreading out from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture

Nothing to do with White Supremacy really. Just a theory that got hijacked and turned into something that it wasn't.




Worth also mentioning the Celto-Iberians. There is a lot of debate around this ethnic group. Caesar recognised them as a distinctive group in Spain. Edina has mentioned them in connection with aspects of Irish mythology. Their known historical provenance is the late centuries BC.

The Irish King lists give dates of c1800BC for the Tuatha deDanu and their Kingships. That's more than 1500 years before the emergence of Celto-Iberians into history. The Kings lists were the work of medieval Christian monks and were first written down some 2500 years after the events they relate to. They can't be taken seriously as history, but are fascinating.

It is the Fir-Bolg that date back to the time you say, and they settled in Greece, not Spain.

It was the Milesians that settled in Spain, though admittedly the date given for their rule of Spain also predates Celtiberians and Gallaeci, whom strictly speaking, would have been the ones that moved to Ireland, not the Celtiberians in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallaeci











Even events like the supposed migration of the Scots from Ulster to Argyll are questionable. There is not a huge amount of evidence to support the historical reality of something that was once almost written in stone (https://www.academia.edu/1368926/Were_the_Scots_Irish). And that's comparatively much more recent.

Nothing fictional about Dal Riata.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata



Patrick Gleeson discussed "Archaeology and Myth in Early Medieval Europe: Making the Gods of Early Ireland "

Was Odin one of the Gods of Ireland? One of Odin's 170+ names was Baileygr the flaming eye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_names_of_Odin

One of those Irish Gods you speak of is Balor the flashing one (referring to his flashing eye)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balor

When did Odin become a God? Could the origins of Odin date as far back as the Hittites?



Far from being relics of prehistoric cult practices, many deities populating these landscapes may have been consciously invented for political, allegorical and exegetical reasons during the medieval period. . This precludes such evidence being utilised to reconstruct pre-Christian cosmologies. This has broad implications for research across European medieval archaeology that would seek to access ritual, belief and religion.

Possible, but how would arguing for Cornwall, Wales, Ireland and Scotland having had a thriving "civilisation" which encompassed the entire British Isles prior to the Roman invasion have benefited the Saxons? Perhaps if the Saxons were correct and that there was never anything civilised about Pre-Roman Britain, then perhaps the tales were made up to build a sense of unity amongst indigenous Brits, along with the creation of a kind of King Arthur figure to help inspire us to fight off the invaders that want to conquer more than just what was Britannia.





I studied Prehistoric Archaeology and Scottish Ethnology at Edinburgh University as an undergraduate and, for a spell, worked as a archaeologist professionally. I suppose this has a huge influence on how I view the past and how I respond to the pseudo-historical stuff. I find that whilst it can be harmless, there are sinister connotations too. The Nazis were keen on pseudo-archaeology and Aryan supremacy and we have already discussed the British Israelites and their unpleasant agenda. There are undertones of racism and white supremacist agendas are never far from the surface.

"British archaeological officer Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews runs the Bad Archaeology blog, which draws attention to the racist qualities of pseudoarchaeology (Bond 2018), as does Jason Colavito’s eponymous blog (Wade 2019). In the age of the internet, archaeologists and pseudoarchaeologists alike have increasing access to a public looking for answers. It is up to the real archaeologists to find innovative ways to take back the attention from the perpetrators of false, harmful pseudoarchaeology".

https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2019/12/08/combatting-pseudoarchaeology-in-the-internet-age/

You don't need to be a Nazi to consider that it is possible that the little ice-age may have had global implications across the world, and considering this possibility does not make you a Scientist of Nasa.

The question would be more, how do you prevent yourself from considering the notion that the little ice-age may have resulted in Britons and Scandinavians taking to chasing Reindeer all over the European continent? I suppose having a gun pointed at ones head and being accused of being racist filth might be one way right enough.

[superfurryhibby]

Those bams hijacked a real academic theory, which initially began with the Younger Dryas mass migration theory out of lands in the Northern Hemisphere which lead to a Nomadic culture, beginning with the Ahrensburg Culture, and spreading out from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture

Nothing to do with White Supremacy really. Just a theory that got hijacked and turned into something that it wasn't.



It is the Fir-Bolg that date back to the time you say, and they settled in Greece, not Spain.

It was the Milesians that settled in Spain, though admittedly the date given for their rule of Spain also predates Celtiberians and Gallaeci, whom strictly speaking, would have been the ones that moved to Ireland, not the Celtiberians in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallaeci



Nothing fictional about Dal Riata.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata



Was Odin one of the Gods of Ireland? One of Odin's 170+ names was Baileygr the flaming eye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_names_of_Odin

One of those Irish Gods you speak of is Balor the flashing one (referring to his flashing eye)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balor

When did Odin become a God? Could the origins of Odin date as far back as the Hittites?



Possible, but how would arguing for Cornwall, Wales, Ireland and Scotland having had a thriving "civilisation" which encompassed the entire British Isles prior to the Roman invasion have benefited the Saxons? Perhaps if the Saxons were correct and that there was never anything civilised about Pre-Roman Britain, then perhaps the tales were made up to build a sense of unity amongst indigenous Brits, along with the creation of a kind of King Arthur figure to help inspire us to fight off the invaders that want to conquer more than just what was Britannia.




You don't need to be a Nazi to consider that it is possible that the little ice-age may have had global implications across the world, and considering this possibility does not make you a Scientist of Nasa.

The question would be more, how do you prevent yourself from considering the notion that the little ice-age may have resulted in Britons and Scandinavians taking to chasing Reindeer all over the European continent? I suppose having a gun pointed at ones head and being accused of being racist filth might be one way right enough.


No worries. You'll probably actually need to focus on a subject and read the links I posted before I can really engage more. They are mostly from academics or academic works rather than quoting from Wiki.

[Edina Street]

No worries. You'll probably actually need to focus on a subject and read the links I posted before I can really engage more. They are mostly from academics or academic works rather than quoting from Wiki.

I don't feel I need to.

Are Scots Irish? Quite simply they are an amalgamation of Picts and Gaels. I can be certain about this using common sense alone. A lot of Scots will simply be related to those Picts that were here already. Probably more so than not. And not all Vikings that were defeated would have ran off back home either. They would simply have assimilated.

Was the Scottish ruling elite Irish? Well, that's a different question.

If you know the answer, or the person you're linking to knows the answer, feel free to share the answer, as I only do my own research based upon what the person I am speaking to says. I don't read the research of third parties, as I simply do not have the time with work commitments. It is something I can only do between phone calls and dealing with customers.

I apologise if my research is wikipedia based, whilst yours is more academic based. Perhaps you're more of an academic than me.

However the vast majority of the stuff I researched ranging from Sumerian tablets, Ancient Egypt, Roman and Byzantine Empire, Greek, Norse, British and Irish mythology, was done during Covid Lockdown. I no longer have the time any more to read every link I get sent, so please let me know the conclusion of the person you're linking to.