Talk:History of Ireland

Gaelic scots

I am hazy on the details, but I understand 5th C emigration from what is now Ireland formed a large part of the mixture that is modern Scots. This seems to be missing from the article. Does anyone have some good sources? Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is no historical or archaeological evidence to suggest there was ever any large scale migration or invasion from Ireland to Western Scotland. Other than the spread of the Gaelic culture/language. However this is quite simply a case of cultural assimilation. People in the western isles of Scotland were isolated from the Picts and Brythons by the Cairngorm mountains. It was far easier to trade with Ireland just 30 odd miles across the sea than it was to navigate the Cairngorm mountains to deal with the mostly hostile Picts. Naturally as centuries of trade took place cultural values would be adopted from the Irish. So no it wouldn't be wise to add that into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Arrival" of the Celts

Though it may be literally correct, and has 2 ref (no page numbers though), to just say "The period between the start of the Iron Age and the historic period (AD 431) saw the gradual infiltration of small groups of Celtic speaking people into Ireland..." with no context is misleading. An imported upper class is only one explanation for the arrival of "Celtic" La Tène style material culture, and many specialists believe that Ireland had already been using a Celtic language well before any putative arrival in this period. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, as has been discussed in the past, there is no real evidence for the arrival of Celtic peoples as such, but merely of Celtic artefacts. We have lots of evidence of trade but not of significant migration. It is a 19C error that has become enshrined in "ev'ry skool boy no". --Red King (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is now more generally agreed that instead of a large migration of Celtic people or upper-class - it was more the migration of Celtic culture that was introduced via numerous methods. Just like how Americanisms have made their way across the Atlantic and can be found ever more across these isles. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the very newest school, not even a decade old but rapidly growing, is that the Atlantic peoples already were Celtic or proto-Celtic speaking, or that variety of Indo-European which became it, as early or before those in Central Europe, no Iron Age migrations required. This would appear to be supported by the most recent genetic studies, which show that the earlier theory that the peoples of the Atlantic and British Isles were of Paleolithic descent is wrong (and politically motivated). They probably arrived in/with the Neolithic and were Indo-European speakers. I'm working on some other things right now but will try to remember to get back to you. But have a look at the contributions I made to Irish people#Genetics a few months ago to start. DinDraithou (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The linguistic aspect of the theory is older than that. Changes need to be carried through to Prehistoric Ireland and Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles, & I hope someone will do it. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish nobility

Could I invite views on Irish nobility. The article has changed in focus since the contributions of DinDriathou. Before then, the article pertained to Gaelic nobles, peers of the Lordship of Ireland and the Kingdom of Ireland and peers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It then changed to refer to Gaelic nobles, "medieval nobility of foreign origin" and stated that "nobility originating from the so-called Kingdom of Ireland onwards, and with few exceptions not generally accepted as 'Irish'".

I raised POV/V issues with these statements. A series of moves/reverts have put the article now at Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility of Ireland. While that is not altogether a problem topic, it is quite an odd choice for an article and it is not clear what the article is "about". In my view, one article dealing with Gaelic titles (including Gaelicised Normans) and one dealing with "English" titles (see Peerage of Ireland) might be more appropriate.

That may be the intention behind the move, but other views would be appreciated.--RA (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not wild about either the old version or the new one. Neither of them seems to know what it's about. What's wanted, it seems to me, is a collaborative effort to organise the article in some sort of coherent way e.g. Pre-Norman Taoisigh, historic Gaelic nobles, historic Anglo-Irish nobles, current existing families and current heads, and to decide on a consistent format i.e. list, text or text followed by list. As it stands (or as it stood last week) it is unhelpful to those who know the subject and unintelligible to those (including me) who don't.

I am cross-posting this to the article talk page.

Also, I'm not convinced of the desirability of using the "History of Ireland" article as a WP:WikiProject Irish history. Either issues like these should be raised at WikiProject Ireland or a history WikiProject should be created. Scolaire (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It does resemble WP:Canvassing behavior. DinDraithou (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not what I meant! Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What? DinDraithou (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor is entitled to highlight a discussion in another forum. That is not canvassing. I was querying whether the talk page of a different, but more widely read, article ought to be used as a forum. That's all. Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind "non-neutral manner" or " the use of tone, wording, or intent", right? DinDraithou (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

History (of Ireland) task force

A proposal has been posted to WikiProject Ireland to create a task force for History of Ireland articles as a part of WikiProject Ireland. Comments welcome. --RA (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

History by ethnic group

If the topic of this article is history of an Ireland as geographical phenomenon or state, then it should not be categorized in History by ethnic group?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have removed it. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Method of the arrival of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers

Take the lead... or not.

I have moved the method of migration out of the lead section and into the prehistory section because I don't think it adds anything to the lead and it can be covered later in the article. Personally I find the lead for this article to be a bit cluttered so to me this was an easy way to make it a little less so. Either way I think this point can be considered independently from the other point. Jamie (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

By "boot" or by boat

While I haven't read The Course of Irish History (I have a copy being shipped to me currently) even if it does say the earliest hunter-gatherers probably arrived via a land bridge it is just one source, there are other sources that are pretty adamant that there were no land bridges by the time Ireland was being settled as well as other sources that recognizes there are multiple positions. Having a source saying the land bridge was probably how Ireland was settled followed by another source saying Ireland was obviously colonised long after any land bridge had been severed would be confusing to read; having a third source stating that the means of migration is still debated would clear things up but then it would make the first two sources redundant. As such I removed the statement saying the migration via a land bridge was probable and replaced it (in a different section) with a sourced statement saying the way people first came to Ireland is still in debate.

Here's a few relevant references to the issue:

About 10,500 or 11,000 years before the present (BP) a period of severe cold and tundra-like conditions returned, known as the Nahanagan Stadial or Cold Phase after the site in Co. Wicklow where it was first documented. The climate must then have resembled that of northern Siberia today. Pollens of Zone III show that plants of more northern type had appeared and that woodland was reduced. Ice probably increased in mountain areas and the relative sea level, which had risen during the interstadial stage, was once again lowered. Areas of land would have been exposed off the coasts and, according to some authorities, land bridges may have existed between Ireland and Britain during this time. This is a matter of continuing controversy and some scholars hold that in all probability no firm land connections existed after about 20,000 years ago (Devoy 1983). The resolution of this question would have important implications for the immigration of humans to Ireland.

—Michael J. O'Kelly, Early Ireland: an introduction to Irish prehistory, page7-8; 1989

The question as to when the land link between Ireland and Britain was finally severed is one which has been hotly debated for decades, but there is now a growing consensus among scholars in favour of the existence of one or more land-bridges between Ireland and Britain for a sufficient length of time after the onset of the warm Littletonian phase for people to have arrived in Ireland across dry land.

—Peter Harbison, Pre-Christian Ireland: from the first settlers to the early Celts, page 18; 1994

The question of the origins of these early mesolithic groups remains a matter for debate and, indeed, it is not as yet fully clear to what extent they came to Ireland on foot or in boats. An immediate background for the Irish mesolithic somewhere in western Britain – perhaps Scotland, England, or Wales – is likely and it is not impossible that the first inhabitants of what came to be the island of Ireland arrived by walking.

—Michael J. O'Kelly, A New History of Ireland: Prehistoric and early Ireland, Ch. 3 - Ireland before 3000 B.C., page 66-67;2005

Britain and Ireland did not assume their present forms simultaneously, and this had serious consequences for their ecology and the hunter gatherers that lived there. Ireland was cut off by the sea at a time when Britain was still attached to the European mainland. This happened well before Ireland had any inhabitants and certainly before a number of animal species coul have become established ... The earliest settlement of Ireland seems to have taken place by boat around 8000 BC (Woodman 2004) ... Ireland was obviously colonised long after any land bridge had been severed, and there are points in common between the material culture of its first inhabitants and the artefacts found in Britain.

—Richard Bradley, The prehistory of Britain and Ireland, page 8, 8 & 9-10;2007

Jamie (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though the edit is no longer in dispute I have just received a copy of The Course of Irish History so I thought I'd add this for completeness. While it does say a land bridge may have existed up to 6000 BC the only thing it specifically says about the way in which the first inhabitants arrived is, "...and at about 6000 BC, or perhaps a little earlier, they moved still farther west, probably across the narrow straights of water towards the highlands of Antrim and Wicklow as these could be clearly seen from the British shoreline.” (p32) Which is at odds with the way it was cited. Jamie (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)