GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155990793


From: Alan R <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Ui Neill origins
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:33:13 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <4ff.5032246.3217e960@aol.com>


While O'Rahilly was an impressive scholar, it is very
widely considered among academics that his epic
interpretation of the origins and chronologies of and
even linkages between early Irish population groups/
strata is probably far wide of the mark. F.J. Byrne
is (universally among academics) seen as more reliable
on this subject and his general interpretation
(perhaps not every detail) is much closer to the
truth. Byrne is pretty convincing in his argument
that the Ui Neill and the Connachta as a whole
expanded from a core in northern Connaught. This, in
my opinion coincidentally, is also the epicentre of
R1b NW Irish. Byrne suggests, the connecting of the
Connachta with the early kings of Tara in the east of
Ireland is fabricated and the early kings of Tara in
these tales were almost certainly really from Erainn
or other non-Connachta groupings.


I am not sure about the Connachta/ Ui Neill's real
origins before they rose to prominence in their
Connaught core and, given the late date of this
rise(the Connachta do not appear on Ptolemy's 2nd
century AD map of Ireland), a very late Iron Age/
Roman period continental origin (where Celtic was
becoming extinct or would have been studded with Latin
borrowings) seems very unlikely indeed.

The most unacceptable aspect of O'Rahilly's theory is
that the Gaelic language's arrival in Ireland was a
late one connected with the arrival of the Connachta.
As has been pointed out by many (I think including
Byrne), contrary to their own propaganda, the
Connachta/ Ui Neill only settled in part of Ireland
(all of this in the northern half) even as late as the
Viking Age. Their settlements then included much of
Connaught, the western third of Ulster and the
northern Midlands. They, if I remember correctly, had
no settlements in mid and eastern Ulster, the south
midlands, or any of Leinster and Muster (the Munster
Eoghanachta link to the Connachta is clearly a
fabrication). The Ui Neill, therefore, were not (in
fact never became) in a position to impose Gaelic on
all of Ireland.

Indeed, two areas in the extreme NE and SW of Ireland
that were well beyond the Connachta/ Ui Neill's then
modest settlements have clear direct and indirect
evidence of already being Gaelic speaking by the end
of the 5th century. The evidence in the SW is the
archaic Gaelic on the ogham stones while the
(indirect) evidence for the NE is the fact that this
included the territory of Dalriada who undoubtedly
were Gaelic speakers when they began their movement to
Scotland about this time. Both the extreme SW and NE
were held by peoples who were thought of as Erainn.
So, it is clear that the idea that Connachta=the Gaels
with all the other groups being Brittonic is nonsense.


I would like to start a debate on the population
vector that celticised Ireland at some future date.
Briefly, I feel that there is evidence, in the form of
a 6th century BC reference to the island in a form
that is recognisable today in the Gaelic name for
Ireland (see 'Emania' article), that Ireland was
already Celtic (almost certainly Goidelic/ Gaelic) by
the end of Bronze Age and that the the descendants of
the Bronze Age peoples of Ireland were later known as
the Erainn, a term which seems to have the rather
indigenous meaning 'Ireland people'. The
Celticisation of Ireland during the Bronze Age may
have been a subtle, gradual, have involved only very
limited population exchanges and is not obvious in the
archaeological record. I think that other small later
Celtic groups probably included the groups later
categorised as Cruithin, Laigan, Fir Domnann, Fir Bolg
etc whose names and/ or traditions point to being
groups from British or Gaulish sources and this may be
dimly reflected in the scattering of La Tene derived
material in the last few centuries BC (virtually no
material suggests Iberian connections). It is most
likely that these later groups spoke P-Celtic forms
(which by the last few centuries BC is thought to have
dominated in Britain and Gaul) but clearly did not
oust the earlier Q-form in Ireland which I think was
there in the late Bronze Age.

For what it is worth, I feel that the fact that the
Connachta are not linked in myth in any convincing way
to any of the more convincing sub-ethnic strata
(Cruithin, Laigin, Erainn, Fir Domnainn etc) suggests
they were probably rose from an obscure unglamourous
indigenous group. They seem to be more a dynasty than
a tribal grouping and clearly upset the 'ancient
regime'. Why they rose to power is also unclear but
they seem to have been ruthless and apparently cut
across older tribal patterns. I think they were home
grown rather than external. The main argument is that
in the early centuries AD, there were few unromanised
Celts (romanised ones would not wish to leave the
empire) in Europe and there simply is nowhere for a
Celtic group to have come from apart from Ireland
itself, Scotland and perhaps some other corners of
western Britain. In this period, Ireland would have
appeared a very dangerous place to roman Britons who
were subject to raids from this area.

I just get the impression that the Ui Neill were local
real politik types who took advantage of a more
ritualistic society (for which there is plenty of
archaeological evidence).

Evidence is slight to prove this indigenous theory but
the fact that Connaught is so R1b (the Gaelic surnamed
population is almost 100%)suggests that the Connachta/
Ui Neill heartland was one with a basically indigenous
population that had been in place since early
prehistoric times. More damningly, in terms of
seeking a continental homeland for the Ui Neill, is
the fact that the DNA of many modern members of the Ui
Neill clans correlate with R1b NW Irish currently
thought to have emerged in Ireland at some point
between the Neolithic and early historic times.
Unless former Celtic Europe (Gaul) was then much more
totally R1b dominated than it is today (a topic which
I also want to raise some time) then it seems
unlikely, if the province of Connaught or the
Connachta/ Ui Neill lineage had late Continental
population inputs, that they would be virtually 100%
R1b. This would suggest that the Ui Neill rose as a
lineage out of obscure population groups who were
basically pre-Celtic peoples who had been Celticised
in later prehistory. In other part of Ireland the
modern Irish with Gaelic names today include non-R1b
individuals making it more easy to argue that some
later continental Celtic groups may have filtered in.

For what it is worth (possibly not much), I vaguely
remember a late indigenous bardic text (I think
MacFirbhisigh) describing the Connaught people as
being different in appearance and manners than the
typical Irish and labelled then as Fir Bolg, a term
whose meaning by then had changed to indicate some
sort of low status population sub-strata (often
interpreted by scholars as implying pre-Celtic).

One other mystery of the Ui Neill/ Connachta rise is
the source of their apparent military advantage. It
has been suggested that they may have come from
raiding (or even some service with) the late/ sub
Roman world, most likely Britain. However, the
location of the Ui Neill heartland in northern
Connaught could hardly be more geographically
unsuited for raiding or gathering influences outside
Ireland and, unless they were based elsewhere at the
time of the raiding or were a very mobile military
rather than tribal grouping, this seems unlikely.

wrote:

>
> In a message dated 8/18/2006 10:43:07 P.M. Central
> Standard Time,
> writes:
>
> So, now thanks to DNA, after we received the "Ui
> Neill Shock" of
> our lives, we are still trying to piece all this
> together! How did our
> Ui-Neill affiliated ancestors in very early NW
> Ireland find ourselfves in
> the middle of Strathclyde Briton territory by 1180?
>
>
>
> That's an answer I'd like to find too. Are they
> direct descendants of Nial
> of some kind (post 400 AD)? Or part of the same
> general tribe? (pre-400 AD).
> When and how did they come to be in Galloway? We
> know nothing of the Ui
> Neill prior to 400 AD. except what O Rahilly and
> Byrnes tell us. O Rahilly say
> they were a Gaulish tribe who came to Ireland as
> late as 50 BC. landed near
> Dublin and established a kingdom in northern
> Leinster (Meath). Brynes thinks
> they were first in Connacht and then spread into
> Meath and NW Ireland.
> Whatever scenario you follow they weren't in NW
> Ireland until post 400 AD.
> According to the Irish historians those kingdoms
> were founded by sons of Nial and
> wrested away from the original inhabitants.
>
> Of course current DNA theory has them originating
> in Ireland and not
> migrating from Gaul. And they say the DNA
> signature is extremely old, well
> before the time of Nial (thousands of years). If so
> then the DNA could have
> spread from Ireland to Scotland and northern England
> well before the time of Nial
> and could even be pre-Roman in those areas.
>
> What might it mean if M222+ originated in Gaul or
> Spain or at least on the
> continent and the genes moved westward from there
> into Scotland, northern
> England and lastly Ireland? That would be an
> entirely different scenario. We
> have ample evidence in Ptolemy's map of migrations
> of tribes from Gaul into
> Britain and Ireland.
>
> I don't think we'll ever get any answers to these
> questions until the
> experts figure out where M222+ originated. Was it
> in Ireland or on the continent?
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million
> records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the
> world. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>


This thread: