RETURN OF THE CRUITHIN.
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
Harry Merrick <merr...@agencies.dnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The guy Adamson is a highly respected member of NI society, who was
> thought well enough of to be made up to Lord Mayor of Belfast. I rather
> suspect that there is a large degree of sour grapes displayed here,
> certainly by some of the younger persons involved. After all, are Gerry
> and Brendan and Greig such "experts" on the subject themselves? They have,
> after all, apparently failed to find any information on a subject that
> nearly everyone has at least heard of to some degree.
Has he been on many *academic* field trips, I didn't see any mention of
same in his books? In fact the only validated source seemed to be an
ordnance survey map. Also how do you know Ger or me are not 100 times
better qualified?
I mean I *have* been on archeological projects in Anatolia and in North
Africa and have worked with archeologists and have been on field trips
in respect to Votadini sites and *regularly* go on them. In fact the
first week on SCI I pointed out my adventures in respect to Bayeux.
The point being can *you* supply worthwhile recent authorative and
respected academic references from say Cambridge whether on the Cam or
the Charles River is of no import or Oxford or Heidelberg or any other
recognised institution?
Don't you think it strange that *none* of our local or Scottish
Universities accept this theory? Look the fact he's a unionist fits in
with the fact that the anti-catholic death squads have also latched on
to this theory which is utilised as hitlerian sectarian ideology to make
"ethnic" distinctions between christian sects.
Do you really thing this thing is respectable? In a month are you to
return telling us this was a "joke" or a wind up? Don't you think the
fact that the anti-catholic death squads support this rubbish makes it a
dangerous area for april the firstisms.
Greig
--
Harry Merrick
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk wrote:
> Harry Merrick <merr...@agencies.dnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The guy Adamson is a highly respected member of NI society, who was
> > thought well enough of to be made up to Lord Mayor of Belfast. I rather
> > suspect that there is a large degree of sour grapes displayed here,
> > certainly by some of the younger persons involved. After all, are Gerry
> > and Brendan and Greig such "experts" on the subject themselves? They have,
> > after all, apparently failed to find any information on a subject that
> > nearly everyone has at least heard of to some degree.
>
> Has he been on many *academic* field trips, I didn't see any mention of
> same in his books?
Have you actually "read" his books? I somehow doubt that! My ill fated Posting
to Gerard, which unfortunately unwrapped itself all over the NG, does give,
quite clearly, all the sources of information that Adamson used in his
researches. As for field trips? Why, how would *I* know, when such an esteemed
academic such as yourself does not?
> In fact the only validated source seemed to be an
> ordnance survey map. Also how do you know Ger or me are not 100 times
> better qualified?
I don't, but you have never proved otherwise.
>
>
> I mean I *have* been on archeological projects in Anatolia and in North
> Africa and have worked with archeologists and have been on field trips
> in respect to Votadini sites and *regularly* go on them. In fact the
> first week on SCI I pointed out my adventures in respect to Bayeux.
Good for you!
>
>
> The point being can *you* supply worthwhile recent authorative and
> respected academic references from say Cambridge whether on the Cam or
> the Charles River is of no import or Oxford or Heidelberg or any other
> recognised institution?
As I have already said in a different posting, I am not in the least interested.
The facts are, you have fallen rather beautifully for a complete scam and wind
up solely intended to twist your willie, which it has done so, most unexpectedly
successfully! :-))
>
>
> Don't you think it strange that *none* of our local or Scottish
> Universities accept this theory? Look the fact he's a unionist fits in
> with the fact that the anti-catholic death squads have also latched on
> to this theory which is utilised as hitlerian sectarian ideology to make
> "ethnic" distinctions between christian sects.
See above. Oh, and now *you* are guilty of twisting fact and fantasy to try to
get off that particular hook called "ever been had?".
>
>
> Do you really thing this thing is respectable? In a month are you to
> return telling us this was a "joke" or a wind up? Don't you think the
> fact that the anti-catholic death squads support this rubbish makes it a
> dangerous area for april the firstisms.
>
> Greig
>
> --
Too late, Greig! Such a pity about your comprehension and sense of humour.
Always on the warpath Greig, you don't like it when you look foolish!
Understandably, of course.
--
Harry.
ICQ# 2546277.
--
"No Problem Can Stand The Assault Of Sustained Thinking."
Voltaire.
Alan Smaill
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
> The point being can *you* supply worthwhile recent authorative and
> respected academic references from say Cambridge whether on the Cam or
> the Charles River is of no import or Oxford or Heidelberg or any other
> recognised institution?
If you could post a grammatical sentence, we might be able to reply.
> Don't you think it strange that *none* of our local or Scottish
> Universities accept this theory?
I still don't know what this theory is that Greggers is getting
worked up about.
Maybe he'd like to tell us?
I thought not.
Of course, Greggers has not looked at Smyth's book,
"Warlords and holy men" Edinburgh University Press, 1989.
Have you Greggers?
--
Alan Smaill, email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Department of AI tel: 44-131-650-2710
Edinburgh University.
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
If you knew anything you'd know the Scottish planters came from SW
Scotland and the Cruithin from the North of Scotland. Now learnsome
geography.
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk wrote:
>
> Harry Merrick <merr...@agencies.dnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The guy Adamson is a highly respected member of NI society, who was
> > thought well enough of to be made up to Lord Mayor of Belfast. I rather
> > suspect that there is a large degree of sour grapes displayed here,
> > certainly by some of the younger persons involved. After all, are Gerry
> > and Brendan and Greig such "experts" on the subject themselves? They have,
> > after all, apparently failed to find any information on a subject that
> > nearly everyone has at least heard of to some degree.
>
> Has he been on many *academic* field trips, I didn't see any mention of
> ordnance survey map. Also how do you know Ger or me are not 100 times
> better qualified?
>
> Africa and have worked with archeologists and have been on field trips
> in respect to Votadini sites and *regularly* go on them. In fact the
> first week on SCI I pointed out my adventures in respect to Bayeux.
>
> respected academic references from say Cambridge whether on the Cam or
> the Charles River is of no import or Oxford or Heidelberg or any other
> recognised institution?
>
> with the fact that the anti-catholic death squads have also latched on
> to this theory which is utilised as hitlerian sectarian ideology to make
> "ethnic" distinctions between christian sects.
>
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
Alan Smaill <sma...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Maybe he'd like to tell us?
>
> I thought not.
Good answer and all your own work.
Greig
--
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
<jkw...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> If you knew anything you'd know the Scottish planters came from SW
> Scotland and the Cruithin from the North of Scotland. Now learnsome
> geography.
Excuse me? What has *that* to do with what I said? Feel free to join in
as our hitlerian race theorists would be delighted to hear as much about
the Cruithni as they can.
Greig
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
Harry Merrick <merr...@agencies.dnet.co.uk> wrote:
> As I have already said in a different posting, I am not in the least
> interested. The facts are, you have fallen rather beautifully for a
> complete scam and wind up solely intended to twist your willie, which it
> has done so, most unexpectedly successfully! :-))
Tell that To Jerry Martin, do you find it hellishly amusing that our
loyalist groupie actually believes in the Cruithin race theory?
Greig
--
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
I think Protestant "Scots-Irish" should get their facts straight. They
are not the Cruithne since they were planted from a non-Pictish area of
Scotland.
They should also remember King Billy was paid for by the Pope
(I-kid-you-not) and the United Irishman were founded by Protestants.
Inconvenient when the historical facts turn up isn't it?
Alan Smaill
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
We all know by now when Greggers will refuse to answer --
and it's all too often.
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
Alan Smaill <sma...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
>
> >
> > Alan Smaill <sma...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe he'd like to tell us?
> > >
> > > I thought not.
> >
> >
> >
> > Good answer and all your own work.
> >
> > Greig
>
> We all know by now when Greggers will refuse to answer --
> and it's all too often.
The point being you answer your own questions which is a trifle
offputting and forget to illustrate precisely which part of a sentence
is a question etcetera.
For example you answered your own in the previous post. Perverse I admit
but it keeps you seemingly happy so pray continue. It is a small vice
and you obviously get a lot of pleasure out of it.
Greig
--
Bob Tiptrie
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
> Tell that To Jerry Martin, do you find it hellishly amusing that our
> loyalist groupie actually believes in the Cruithin race theory?
What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
--
Robert Tiptrie Note: Replies to this account may trigger a spamfilter.
[Pithy quote here] You will receive e-mail telling you how to bypass it.
Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig
On Tue, 12 May 1998 10:54:36 PDT, tip...@cygnus.wa.com (Bob Tiptrie)
wrote:
>snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
>
>> Tell that To Jerry Martin, do you find it hellishly amusing that our
>> loyalist groupie actually believes in the Cruithin race theory?
>
>What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
>
The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
So the race theory is that some of the Ulster people are Pictish
rather than Lowland Scots, as I recollect.
* P-Celts are Celts who use "p" where Q-Celts use "c". For example,
Welsh pen (head) = Gaelic ceann.
Welsh map (archaic - son) = Gaelic mac.
P-Celts are the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons.
Q-Celts are the Scots, Irish and Manx.
Měcheil Rob MacPhŕdruig
"Faire faire dhuin' ňig
cia do bharantas mór?
'N i do bharail bhith
beň 's nach eug thu?"
Alan Smaill
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
> Alan Smaill <sma...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
> > > Alan Smaill <sma...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe he'd like to tell us?
> > > >
> > > > I thought not.
> > >
> > > Good answer and all your own work.
> > >
> > > Greig
> >
> > We all know by now when Greggers will refuse to answer --
> > and it's all too often.
>
> The point being you answer your own questions which is a trifle
> offputting and forget to illustrate precisely which part of a sentence
> is a question etcetera.
I quoted in its entirety the posting from the puir wee Greggers
that I was responding to.
All omissions of context are due to the completely predictable
evasions of the puir wee Greggers.
No doubt he will resume the debate, in a liberal democratic
spirit, that he just happened to omit.
I thought not.
> Greig
Gerard Cunningham
Bob Tiptrie wrote:
>snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
>
>> Tell that To Jerry Martin, do you find it hellishly amusing that our
>> loyalist groupie actually believes in the Cruithin race theory?
>
>What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
A belief that Prods can run faster than taigs when being chased by an
angry mob.
-----
Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
http://www.wwa.com/~abardubh/
"For a guide to what's really going on" -s.c.i. FAQ
Gerard Cunningham
Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote:
>The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
>and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
>refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
Michaeil, if this is the case, why is the Irish word for Welsh
"Breathnach" rather than "Creathnach"?
Is there a time difference, or am I missing something else?
Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig
On Wed, 13 May 1998 05:46:46 GMT, Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham) wrote:
>Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote:
>
>>The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
>>and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
>>refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
>
>Michaeil, if this is the case, why is the Irish word for Welsh
>"Breathnach" rather than "Creathnach"?
>Is there a time difference, or am I missing something else?
Because only soft B (P) changes, not hard B. So Bard (poet) and
Bealach (mountain pass) in Gaelic are Bardd and Bwlch in Welsh.
Setanta
>snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
>
>> Tell that To Jerry Martin, do you find it hellishly amusing that our
>> loyalist groupie actually believes in the Cruithin race theory?
>
>What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
Here's a quickie from "Ulster - The Hidden History" by Michael Hall...
Let us pause for a moment, and ask ourselves a question - why are
people in Ulster oblivious of much of this history, in particular of
the existence of the ancient Cruthin? A frequent response by
academics has been just to ignore the Cruthin, and thereby imply that
Adamson has either exaggerated their importance or even invented their
very existence. Well, to appease any doubting Thomas I will refrain
from quoting Adamson here - after all, he and 1, coming from Ulster,
might be suspected of bias - and will instead stick to impeccable and
learned Irish historians.
Eoin MacNeill has been described, in the title of a book about him, as
a 'scholar revolutionary'. Not only did this pre-eminent and
respected academic revolutionise the study of Irish history, but he
was the founder of the Gaelic League in 1893, and co-founder of the
Irish Volunteers in 1913. He was asked to write the historical
section in Saorstcit Eireann, Irish Free State Official Handbook, He
began his essay:
"While the Celts were still newcomers to Ireland and Britain, the
inhabitants of both countries were known to them by the name Pretani
or Qretani. From Qretani came their old name in Irish Cruthin."
He points outthatthe Romans called the Pretani the'Picti', and he
usesthat nameforthe people inhabiting Ireland and Scotland (although
it is now more usual to reserve the name Picts for the ancient
inhabitants. of Scotland, while their kinsfolk in Ireland are labelled
the Cruthin). He continues:
"Irish traditions amply confirm the evidence of Greek writers that
Ireland was once a country of the Pretani, Cruthin, or Picts. Our own
writers, in the seventh century and later, show that in their time
there were numerous families, including many of high degree, in every
quarter of Ireland but especially in Ulster and Connacht, who were
recognised to be of Pictish descent. The problem 'Who were the
Picts?'has long been under discussion. Ancient and firm tradition, in
Britain as well as in Ireland, declared them to be quite a distinct
people from the Gaels and the Britons; and some who have sought to
solve the problem have ignored the existence of a large Pictish
clement in Ireland. The view of the late Sir John Rhys appears most
reasonable, that, whereas the Celts came from Mid-Europe and belonged
to the 'Indo-European' linguistic group, the Picts belong to the older
peoples of Western Europe. They were the chief people of Ireland in
the Bronze Age, and to them the Irish arts and crafts and monuments of
that age may be ascribed." (22)
Another eminent Irish historian, Thomas F. O'Rahilly, following in
MacNeill's footsteps, was even more thorough, especially in his
monumental work Early Irish History and Mythology. He poured scorn on
the old texts which claimed that the Gaels were descended from the
ancient Sons of Mil, and on all the writers over the centuries who had
laboured hard constructing extensive family-trees (genealogies) for
the same purpose.
"The 'learned' authors of that elaborate fiction, the invasion of the
Sons of Mil, and the genealogy-makers who collaborated with them, were
animated by the desire to invest the Gaelic occupation of Ireland with
an antiquity to which it was entitled neither in fact nor in
tradition; for only in this way would it be feasible to provide a
Gaelic descent fortribes of non-Gaelic origin, and to unify the
divergent ethnic elements in the country by tracing them back to a
common ancestor. ... (By) obliterating the memory of the different
ethnic origins of the people ... the tribes of preGaelic descent were
turned officially into Gaels ... ltwas necessaryto discountenancethe
popular viewthatthe Gaels were, comparatively speaking, late-comersto
this country, and so the authors boldly and deliberately pushed
backthe Gaelic invasion into the remote past." (23)
O'Rahilly states that "traditional, historical and linguistic
considerations all support the conclusion that the Gaelic invasion was
a late event in Irish history, an event which must have occured not
long before, or not long after, the beginning of the Christian era."
It was the Cruthin who O'Rahilly realised were the original pre-Ceitic
inhabitants:
"The Cruthin or Pretani are the earliest inhabitants of these islands
to whom a name can be assigned. In early Christian times, when the
origins of the different ethnic strata of the Irish population were
well remembered, the Cruthin of Ireland must have been conscious of
the fact
that their ancestors had inhabited the country before the coming of
the Beigae and the Gaels ... The combined influence of Bede, Mael
Mura, and the genealogical fiction of lr, caused Cruthin to lose
favour as the name of a section of the Irish population ... This
disuse of Cruthin as a name is doubtless connected with the rise of a
new genealogical doctrine which turned the Irish Cruthin into Gaels
and thus dissociated them from the Cruthin of Scotland ...
Nevertheless the fact that there were Cruthin in Ireland as well as in
Scotland was, as might be expected, long remembered; and so it is not
surprising to find writers occasionally suggesting, in defiance of
Mael Mura, that the Cruthin of both countries formed one people in
remote times." (23)
The existence of the Cruthin continues to be maintained by some
present-day historians. Francis J. Byrne writes: "The bulk of the
population (of Ulster) were the people known as Cruthin or Cruithni.
The Cruthin on occasion usurped the over-kingship of Ulaid: more often
than not they bore the brunt of the wars against the Ui Neill." (6)
John M. Dickson, writing in the Ulster Journal of Archaeology in 1897,
warned the reader that the old annals "only record the doings of the
comparatively small dominant caste who could pretend to Milesian
descent - the'Gaeis'(or Celts). The poor aboriginal rank and file of
the country - what would now be called 'the masses'- were completely
ignored, as being beneath the notice of those bards and historians."
(24)
And just as those bards had waxed poetical about the dominant Celts,
so Dickson, not to be outdone, flew to the defence of the ' 'forgotten
ones'. Accusing the Celts of just being warlike colonisers, he wrote:
"it is to these 'unhonoured and unsung' non-Celtic masses that Irish
character owes some of its most amiable as well as its most
distinctive qualities. To them are due the respect for women and the
politeness for which our countrymen are famous everywhere; theirs are
the attachment to home and kindred, the cheerfulness and the piety; it
was they who cast over each hill and stream of their native land the
glamour of their fairy lore, before a Ceit had set foot upon its
shores; while in the undertone of sadness that runs so largelythrough
Irish music we may still hear the wail of the downtrodden race."
To return to the Irish historians: why is it that the facts, so
clearly laid out by these eminent scholars, have remained so 'hidden'?
Their books were forthright and objective, devoid of sectarian or
nationalistic prejudice. Perhaps what they were revealing was too
uncomfortable for some to admit, too much at odds with the accepted
stereotypes? MacNeill himself realised this:
"I find that strong sentimental objections exist to (my) conclusions
.. the hitherto current account of pre-Christian Ireland has
belittled and overclouded the vast majority of the Irish people for
the glorification of a dominant minority, and the one outcome of these
studies has been to restore the majority to the historical place of
honour from which they have been ousted for a thousand years." (1 3)
Another and later minority have also been glorified, again at the
expense of a real history of the Ulster, and Irish, people - the
Anglo-lrish Ascendancy. Most history books about Ulster written by
the Anglo-irish establishment start with the arrival of the
Anglo-Normans, as if history only becomes important when the English
arrive on the scene, all else is irrelevant, or at best crammed into a
page or two.
The ordinary people of Ulster, all of them, have been squeezed between
an Anglo-irish Ascendancy history on the one hand, and what amounts to
a Gaelic Ascendancy history on the other. We can only hope that the
squeeze will eventually fuse the divided people together again, to
reclaim the ancient heritage that is so rightfully theirs.
Sources:
6. Irish Kings and High-Kings, Francis J. Byrne, Batsford, 1973.
13. 'Where Does Irish History Begin', Eoin MacNeill, New Ireland
Review 25, March 1906; cited in The Scholar Revolutionary, edited by
Martin and Byrne, Irish University Press, 1973.
22. Saorstit Eireann Official Handbook, The Talbot Press, Dublin
1932.
23. Early Irish History and Mythology, Thomas F. O'Rahilly, The
Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1946.
24. 'Notes on Irish Ethnology', John M. Dickson, Ulster Journal of
Archaeology, Vol 4 no.l, October, 1897.
Jerry
Ulster is nobody's Czechoslovakia
Bryn Fraser
In article <355e29e4...@news.wwa.com>, Gerard Cunningham <Ger@r.d>
writes
>Bob Tiptrie wrote:
>
>>snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
>>
>>> Tell that To Jerry Martin, do you find it hellishly amusing that our
>>> loyalist groupie actually believes in the Cruithin race theory?
>>
>>What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
>
>angry mob.
>
have a mental (sorry Klaus) picture of M R MacPhadric in full cammo kit
with a stopwatch timing them as they go past and keeping a book on the
outcomes, taking swigs from a bottle of the ancient tougue melter while
keeping one eye on the timepiece. Sorry Michael! Just joking!
Actually my fascination with this thread an my total and absolute
ignorance of the subject. Led me to do some research (Yawn! Yawn! They
all go!) and therefore have an immediate and learned opinion.
The very oldest form of the word appears to be cruitheachd/cruth which =
creator or the creation. The descriptive form cruthen = pict pl cruthni.
comes later, is middle Irish and can also be applied to briton in OG.
Soooo...The ancestor king Cruithne/cruth (creator/source/essense) father
of the founding sons Fib, Fidach, Fotlaig, Fortriu, Caitt, Ce, Circinn
and all attendent information. Looks to be another accretion drawn from
Greek myth.
:|
Fire in the hole! Leggit!!!!!!
Bryn
Bryn Fraser
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
Gerard Cunningham <Ger@r.d> wrote:
> Bob Tiptrie wrote:
>
> >snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
> >
> >> Tell that To Jerry Martin, do you find it hellishly amusing that our
> >> loyalist groupie actually believes in the Cruithin race theory?
> >
> >What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
>
> A belief that Prods can run faster than taigs when being chased by an
> angry mob.
>
> -----
> Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
> http://www.wwa.com/~abardubh/
> "For a guide to what's really going on" -s.c.i. FAQ
Excellent post, At last we're getting into a sensible area.
Greig
--
JC
Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
> tip...@cygnus.wa.com (Bob Tiptrie)
>>snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
>>> Tell that To Jerry Martin, do you find it hellishly amusing that our
>>> loyalist groupie actually believes in the Cruithin race theory?
>>What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
>The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
>and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
>refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
Shit, all this time I though Jerry Martin was talking about the lumpy
bits in my soup.
Regards,
JC (Bigfella)
Email from SCI posters and lurkers welcome but email from Junk mailers &
Spammers will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proof-read with the help of the
mailer, his postmaster, and if necessary, his upstream provider(s).
2. The sender of any such unsolicited email sent to this address agrees
to pay $500/email for proofreading services.
3. Any junk email sent to this address will be placed in the junk email
blacklist at Quantum/Connexus & Sender agrees to pay $75 for each such
email archived.
Lisa L. Spangenberg
In article <35602e04...@news.wwa.com>, Ger@r.d wrote:
> Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote:
>
> >The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
> >and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
> >refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
>
> Michaeil, if this is the case, why is the Irish word for Welsh
> "Breathnach" rather than "Creathnach"?
> Is there a time difference, or am I missing something else?
>
Most Celtic linguisists that I've read, including Pokorney, Jackson, and
Koch, suggest that both forms share a common Celtic ancestor, neither was
borrowed from the other.
--
Lisa L. Spangenberg | lis...@aol.com
Celtic Studies Resources | http://members.aol.com/lisala
Digital Medievalist | My opinions are my own.
Cris
Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
<3558f196...@news.whidbey.com>...
>On Tue, 12 May 1998 10:54:36 PDT, tip...@cygnus.wa.com (Bob Tiptrie)wrote:
>>What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
>>
>The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
>and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
>refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
>So the race theory is that some of the Ulster people are Pictish
>rather than Lowland Scots, as I recollect.
The explosive bit of the Cruthin theory (developed by Ian Adamson)
differentiates between Picts and Celts and argues that the Pictish
inhabitants of Ulster had to flee to Scotland from the Celtic invaders
and that the Scottish planters in the 17th century were descendants
from these very Picts. That makes - at least in the eyes of the
Unionist Cruthinologists - the Plantation a homecoming instead of an
invasion and is used to justify the claim of Ulster Protestants to
Northern Ireland.
Yours,
Cris
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
JC wrote:
>
> Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
> >>snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk (snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk) writes:
>
> >>> Tell that To Jerry Martin, do you find it hellishly amusing that our
> >>> loyalist groupie actually believes in the Cruithin race theory?
>
>
> >The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
> >and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
> >refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
>
> bits in my soup.
>
> Regards,
>
> JC (Bigfella)
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Cris wrote:
>
> Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
> >On Tue, 12 May 1998 10:54:36 PDT, tip...@cygnus.wa.com (Bob Tiptrie)wrote:
>
> >>
> >The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
> >and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
> >refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
> >rather than Lowland Scots, as I recollect.
>
> The explosive bit of the Cruthin theory (developed by Ian Adamson)
> differentiates between Picts and Celts and argues that the Pictish
> inhabitants of Ulster had to flee to Scotland from the Celtic invaders
> and that the Scottish planters in the 17th century were descendants
> from these very Picts. That makes - at least in the eyes of the
> Unionist Cruthinologists - the Plantation a homecoming instead of an
> invasion and is used to justify the claim of Ulster Protestants to
> Northern Ireland.
could the planters be Picts then?
zxm...@mailadrgen.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de
In article <355A1F...@cableinet.co.uk>,
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> Cris wrote:
> >
> > Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote...
> > >The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
> > >and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
> > >refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
> > >So the race theory is that some of the Ulster people are Pictish
> > >rather than Lowland Scots, as I recollect.
> >
> > The explosive bit of the Cruthin theory (developed by Ian Adamson)
> > differentiates between Picts and Celts and argues that the Pictish
> > inhabitants of Ulster had to flee to Scotland from the Celtic invaders
> > and that the Scottish planters in the 17th century were descendants
> > from these very Picts. That makes - at least in the eyes of the
> > Unionist Cruthinologists - the Plantation a homecoming instead of an
> > invasion and is used to justify the claim of Ulster Protestants to
> > Northern Ireland.
> Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
> could the planters be Picts then?
Yes, that's one of the many interesting questions about this theory.
Yours,
Cris
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
Cris <zxm...@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
> <3558f196...@news.whidbey.com>...
> >On Tue, 12 May 1998 10:54:36 PDT, tip...@cygnus.wa.com (Bob Tiptrie)wrote:
>
>
> >>What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
> >>
> >The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
> >and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
> >refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
> >So the race theory is that some of the Ulster people are Pictish
> >rather than Lowland Scots, as I recollect.
>
>
> The explosive bit of the Cruthin theory (developed by Ian Adamson)
> differentiates between Picts and Celts and argues that the Pictish
> inhabitants of Ulster had to flee to Scotland from the Celtic invaders
> and that the Scottish planters in the 17th century were descendants
> from these very Picts. That makes - at least in the eyes of the
> Unionist Cruthinologists - the Plantation a homecoming instead of an
> invasion and is used to justify the claim of Ulster Protestants to
> Northern Ireland.
>
> Yours,
> Cris
More or less there is absolutely no physical evidence to suggest that
the Cruithin were non-celtic in Ireland. This person (Adamson) regards I
think the La Tene period as "the" celtic arrival and one presumes the
Cruithin exit. There is no evidence of any such conflict I think Mallory
in "Ulster Archeology" makes the same point I can't remember who the
co-author was.
Concepts such as proto-celtic or indeed even Hallstatt arrivals are
blurred as indeed are the British end of things. There is no question
that Europeans were *very* well informed about Irish metals for a *very*
long time and I think we know where the metal ended up and can therefore
postulate *real* people arriving to trade or work or settle.
The Celts were probably militarily powerful prior to their Hallstatt
"origins" and doing the same thing less well already and they seemingly
transferred their social and political mechanisms from one lifestyle to
the other seamlessly.
The Celts were able to defend rapid gains easily and were for a very
long period capable of overthrowing sophisicated classical military and
political engines and were merely vunerable to semi-nomadic post harvest
"getherings" of "wildmen" as indeed was any structured society.
Greig
--
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
Lisa L. Spangenberg <lis...@netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <35602e04...@news.wwa.com>, Ger@r.d wrote:
>
> > Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote:
> >
> > >The old Welsh called Pictland "Prydyn". The Irish borrowed the word
> > >and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
> > >refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
> >
> > Michaeil, if this is the case, why is the Irish word for Welsh
> > "Breathnach" rather than "Creathnach"?
> > Is there a time difference, or am I missing something else?
> >
>
> Most Celtic linguisists that I've read, including Pokorney, Jackson, and
> Koch, suggest that both forms share a common Celtic ancestor, neither was
> borrowed from the other.
>
> --
> Lisa L. Spangenberg | lis...@aol.com
> Celtic Studies Resources | http://members.aol.com/lisala
> Digital Medievalist | My opinions are my own.
Common Celtic Period? I think "sophisicated" terms such as legal
phrases have been postulated back using the regular sound laws I gather,
terms such as "distraint", this might also show that a common legal
period was a liklihood. We already know that legal and religious
orthodoxy was a feature in Ireland. There might therefore be some truth
in the origin myths of the Celts they might have exited eurasia or
Scythia as it is not such a long time ago.
They are unlikely to have had an Austrian birth place as they were
obviously doing the same thing less well before. They were simply too
good at what they were about to hit on it straight away. They were also
always seemingly powerful enough to protect their "windfall" and
cautious enough not to attack their "customers" for salt or slaves. I
would given the nature of old Irish Law expect price fixing and central
purchasing to be the order of the day.
Greig
--
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
<zxm...@mailadrgen.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
> > could the planters be Picts then?
>
> Yes, that's one of the many interesting questions about this theory.
>
> Yours,
> Cris
Also the Planters were of "mixed" stock and the idea of any racial group
surviving unchanged for so long is absurd. Not a worry that Unionists
have however.
Greig
--
Gerard Cunningham
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
>could the planters be Picts then?
From what I can gather from what's been posted so far, the argument
seems to be that Dal Riada was actually a Scottish kingdom formed by
Irish Picts as the retreated from the advancing Gaels. The theory
seems to be fuelled by a pathological need on that part of some
unionists to distinguish themselves from Irish/Gaelic/Celtic
nationalists.
Luke T. O'Brien
In "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seumas MacManus. It is noted on
page 406 that during the "Plantation", the County of Colerine (Derry)
"was divided up among the London trade Guilds, the drapers, fishmongers,
vitners, haberdashers, etc.- who had financed the Plantation scheme. "
This demonstrates that the "undertakers" as they were called ,were
a mixed group of low land Scots and English settlers.
Is mise le meas.
Setanta
On Fri, 15 May 1998 07:35:37 GMT, Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham) wrote:
>jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
>>could the planters be Picts then?
>
>From what I can gather from what's been posted so far, the argument
>seems to be that Dal Riada was actually a Scottish kingdom formed by
>Irish Picts as the retreated from the advancing Gaels. The theory
>seems to be fuelled by a pathological need on that part of some
>unionists to distinguish themselves from Irish/Gaelic/Celtic
>nationalists.
I'll have to check out more on this but for certain, no-one is saying
that only protestants can claim Cruthin ancestry (apart from Greg of
course).
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Gerard Cunningham wrote:
>
> jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
> >could the planters be Picts then?
>
> From what I can gather from what's been posted so far, the argument
> seems to be that Dal Riada was actually a Scottish kingdom formed by
> Irish Picts as the retreated from the advancing Gaels. The theory
> seems to be fuelled by a pathological need on that part of some
> unionists to distinguish themselves from Irish/Gaelic/Celtic
> nationalists.
Pictland of Britain...
Matt Kelly
In article <35596187...@news.dnet.co.uk>,
J...@braver.than.a.big.bad.brave.thing (Setanta) wrote:
>Let us pause for a moment, and ask ourselves a question - why are
>people in Ulster oblivious of much of this history, in particular of
>the existence of the ancient Cruthin? A frequent response by
>academics has been just to ignore the Cruthin, and thereby imply that
>Adamson has either exaggerated their importance or even invented their
>very existence. Well, to appease any doubting Thomas I will refrain
>from quoting Adamson here - after all, he and 1, coming from Ulster,
>might be suspected of bias - and will instead stick to impeccable and
>learned Irish historians.
MUCH STUFF DELETED
I don't think that anyone who has read any decent historical analysis of
the early Irish population would dispute the different linguistic origins
of various of its sections. Remember that these linguistic/dialect
differences are NOT the same thing as racial/ethnic differences.
The Cruithin theory is not an historic theory though, it is a political
theory. The Gaels appear to have arrived in Ireland from the Southwest, not
the East. Therefore the areas with the most Cruithin influence in early
Christian times would have been what is now Ulster.
There is no evidence that these people fled en-masse to what is now
Scotland. Instead, there is evidence of repeated travel and trade between
Britain and Ireland and between Ireland and the Western seaboard of Europe
including Africa and the Mediterranean. People were divided by language,
distance and technology; they were not divided into national or ethnic
groups. These are relatively modern constructions.
The idea then, that an early Christian people could have fled to Scotland,
kept their identity for 1000 years and returned triumphant is ridiculous to
anyone who has considered reality rather than a political idea they would
like to be the truth. Similarly, the identification by many Protestants of
early Celtic Christianity with Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism is
equally fallacious. Much of early Christianity would not be recognisable to
followers of today's 57 varieties of Christian sects.
MATT KELLY.
--
ナrigh lasadh as an splanc seo
--
There is no condition of human misery which cannot be made infinitely worse by the arrival of a policeman - Brendan Behan
Bryn Fraser
Observe! Here is the voice of WISDOM made word!
Pay heed gentle reader for you will get no nearer to the truth than
this!
Bryn
Bryn Fraser
gl`uinean geal
Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig
>
>Observe! Here is the voice of WISDOM made word!
>
>Pay heed gentle reader for you will get no nearer to the truth than
>this!
>>There is no condition of human misery which cannot be made infinitely worse by
>>the arrival of a policeman - Brendan Behan
Right on!
Měcheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig
Alan Smaill
ma...@indigo.ie (Matt Kelly) writes:
> I don't think that anyone who has read any decent historical analysis of
> the early Irish population would dispute the different linguistic origins
> of various of its sections. Remember that these linguistic/dialect
> differences are NOT the same thing as racial/ethnic differences.
That's right that they are not the same differnces.
But the usual understanding of "Celtic" these days is in terms
of the language, as the primary determinant.
> The Cruithin theory is not an historic theory though, it is a political
> theory.
What do you mean by "the Cruithin theory"?
(I've seen so many versions).
> The Gaels appear to have arrived in Ireland from the Southwest, not
> the East. Therefore the areas with the most Cruithin influence in early
> Christian times would have been what is now Ulster.
That depends on who you think the Cruithins were.
> There is no evidence that these people fled en-masse to what is now
> Scotland.
Yes.
> Instead, there is evidence of repeated travel and trade between
> Britain and Ireland and between Ireland and the Western seaboard of Europe
> including Africa and the Mediterranean. People were divided by language,
> distance and technology; they were not divided into national or ethnic
> groups. These are relatively modern constructions.
Language is indeed at issue here.
So, what is enthicity, if it has nothing to do with language, distance
and technology?
> The idea then, that an early Christian people could have fled to Scotland,
> kept their identity for 1000 years and returned triumphant is ridiculous
Yes.
> Similarly, the identification by many Protestants of
> early Celtic Christianity with Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism is
> equally fallacious. Much of early Christianity would not be recognisable to
> followers of today's 57 varieties of Christian sects.
and mutatis mutandis (between Catholic/Protestant) as I suppose you intended.
Let us know otherwise.
> MATT KELLY.
Gerard Cunningham
Setanta wrote:
>On Fri, 15 May 1998 07:35:37 GMT, Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham) wrote:
>
>>jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
>>>could the planters be Picts then?
>>
>>From what I can gather from what's been posted so far, the argument
>>seems to be that Dal Riada was actually a Scottish kingdom formed by
>>Irish Picts as the retreated from the advancing Gaels. The theory
>>seems to be fuelled by a pathological need on that part of some
>>unionists to distinguish themselves from Irish/Gaelic/Celtic
>>nationalists.
>
>I'll have to check out more on this but for certain, no-one is saying
>that only protestants can claim Cruthin ancestry (apart from Greg of
>course).
That's the impression given by the Pretani Press website:
"Before the Celtic dawn there dwelt in Ireland the Cruthin, the most
ancient people of the British Isles. They are the subject of Ian
Adamson's book, and in tracing this forgotten race and its influence
down the ages he picks his way through the labyrinth of the early
Irish dynasties, concluding that the Cruthin were the principal
ancestors of the Ulsterman as we know him today. A fascinating story."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -Patrick Morrah
Sunday Telegraph
Jerry, you know as well as I do that in the loaded lexicon of Irish
politics, "Ulsterman" does not have the same meaning as "Northern
Irish".
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Matt Kelly wrote:
> The Cruithin theory is not an historic theory though, it is a political
> theory. The Gaels appear to have arrived in Ireland from the Southwest, not
> the East. Therefore the areas with the most Cruithin influence in early
> Christian times would have been what is now Ulster.
Apparently from what is now Galicia in Spain.
> There is no evidence that these people fled en-masse to what is now
> Scotland. Instead, there is evidence of repeated travel and trade between
> Britain and Ireland and between Ireland and the Western seaboard of Europe
> including Africa and the Mediterranean. People were divided by language,
> distance and technology; they were not divided into national or ethnic
> groups. These are relatively modern constructions.
>
> The idea then, that an early Christian people could have fled to Scotland,
> kept their identity for 1000 years and returned triumphant is ridiculous to
> anyone who has considered reality rather than a political idea they would
> like to be the truth. Similarly, the identification by many Protestants of
> early Celtic Christianity with Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism is
> equally fallacious. Much of early Christianity would not be recognisable to
> followers of today's 57 varieties of Christian sects.
Coptic, and the native Indian Christianity might recognize them. They're
about the closest thing to the original.
> MATT KELLY.
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Alan Smaill wrote:
>
> ma...@indigo.ie (Matt Kelly) writes:
>
> > I don't think that anyone who has read any decent historical analysis of
> > the early Irish population would dispute the different linguistic origins
> > of various of its sections. Remember that these linguistic/dialect
> > differences are NOT the same thing as racial/ethnic differences.
>
> That's right that they are not the same differnces.
>
> But the usual understanding of "Celtic" these days is in terms
> of the language, as the primary determinant.
>
> > theory.
>
> (I've seen so many versions).
>
> > the East. Therefore the areas with the most Cruithin influence in early
> > Christian times would have been what is now Ulster.
>
>
> > Scotland.
>
>
> > Instead, there is evidence of repeated travel and trade between
> > Britain and Ireland and between Ireland and the Western seaboard of Europe
> > including Africa and the Mediterranean. People were divided by language,
> > distance and technology; they were not divided into national or ethnic
> > groups. These are relatively modern constructions.
>
>
> So, what is enthicity, if it has nothing to do with language, distance
> and technology?
> > The idea then, that an early Christian people could have fled to Scotland,
> > kept their identity for 1000 years and returned triumphant is ridiculous
> > Similarly, the identification by many Protestants of
> > early Celtic Christianity with Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism is
> > equally fallacious. Much of early Christianity would not be recognisable to
> > followers of today's 57 varieties of Christian sects.
>
zxm...@mailadrgen.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de
In article <355c14fe...@news.dnet.co.uk>,
J...@red.branch.knights (Setanta) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 May 1998 07:35:37 GMT, Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham) wrote:
>
> >jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >>Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
> >>could the planters be Picts then?
> >
> >From what I can gather from what's been posted so far, the argument
> >seems to be that Dal Riada was actually a Scottish kingdom formed by
> >Irish Picts as the retreated from the advancing Gaels. The theory
> >seems to be fuelled by a pathological need on that part of some
> >unionists to distinguish themselves from Irish/Gaelic/Celtic
> >nationalists.
>
> I'll have to check out more on this but for certain, no-one is saying
> that only protestants can claim Cruthin ancestry (apart from Greg of
> course).
If Adamson's theory that the Celts in Ireland never were more than a small
warrior aristocracy is true, about everybody in Ireland and Scotland would be
a descendant from your Cruthins. Since by that time everybody was Catholic,
the religious division would not play a role at all. On the other hand, all
your Protestant/Cruthin/'different from Catholic/Gaelic'-distinction would
break down. Any opinion?
wayne mccollum
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> Matt Kelly wrote:
>
> > The Cruithin theory is not an historic theory though, it is a political
> > the East. Therefore the areas with the most Cruithin influence in early
> > Christian times would have been what is now Ulster.
> > Britain and Ireland and between Ireland and the Western seaboard of Europe
> > including Africa and the Mediterranean. People were divided by language,
> > distance and technology; they were not divided into national or ethnic
> > groups. These are relatively modern constructions.
> >
> > anyone who has considered reality rather than a political idea they would
> > early Celtic Christianity with Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism is
> > equally fallacious. Much of early Christianity would not be recognisable to
> > followers of today's 57 varieties of Christian sects.
> about the closest thing to the original.
> > MATT KELLY.
What was the original? How do we know? Historical & experiential
(Teleological also), are the only evidences we have. Where
is the historical since the others don't necessarily apply(one
can't & one is not usually accepted)?
Luke T. O'Brien
The following passage is from the "Dictionary of Celtic Mythology" by
Peter
Berresford Ellis, Oxford University Press, 1992, pages 181-182.
" Picts. Sometimes given as the Pictii. in Irish saga they appear as
the Tuatha Cruithne. They are also mentioned in Welsh saga as Priteni.
The Picts were British Celts, a confederation of some of the northern
tribes, such as the Caledonii and the Maecatae. The term 'Pict' was
first recorded in a Latin poem of A.D. 297, and it was simply a nickname
given by the Roman soldiers garrisoned on Hadrian's Wall to the northern
Celtic warriors, who, in order to give themselves a more fearsome
apearance in war, painted or tattooed their bodies: pictii is the past
participle of the Latin pingere 'to paint.'
There is a general misconception that the Picts were a new ethnic
element in Britain. This would be the equivalent of seeing national
groupings in the United States called "Yanks" or "Rebs,"or, indeed
"Limeys" or "Pommies" in England.
Professor Kenneth Jackson points out that there are no texts extant
in a "Pictish language," but that both the Latin king-lists and
place-names are unquestionably Celtic: moreover, they are P-Celtic (i.e.
Brythonic). However, within a few centuries after the Roman period, a
switch to Goidelic (Gaelic) language had been made. The King-lists of
the Picts actually show both Goidelic and Brythonic forms but, Joseph
Loth and Kuno Myer have pointed to the predominence of Brythonic
names..."
Is mise le meas.
Setanta
On Tue, 19 May 1998 03:57:56 GMT, Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham) wrote:
>Setanta wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 May 1998 07:35:37 GMT, Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham) wrote:
>>
>>>jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
>>>>could the planters be Picts then?
>>>
>>>From what I can gather from what's been posted so far, the argument
>>>seems to be that Dal Riada was actually a Scottish kingdom formed by
>>>Irish Picts as the retreated from the advancing Gaels. The theory
>>>seems to be fuelled by a pathological need on that part of some
>>>unionists to distinguish themselves from Irish/Gaelic/Celtic
>>>nationalists.
>>
>>I'll have to check out more on this but for certain, no-one is saying
>>that only protestants can claim Cruthin ancestry (apart from Greg of
>>course).
>
>That's the impression given by the Pretani Press website:
>
>"Before the Celtic dawn there dwelt in Ireland the Cruthin, the most
>ancient people of the British Isles. They are the subject of Ian
>Adamson's book, and in tracing this forgotten race and its influence
>down the ages he picks his way through the labyrinth of the early
>Irish dynasties, concluding that the Cruthin were the principal
>ancestors of the Ulsterman as we know him today. A fascinating story."
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -Patrick Morrah
> Sunday Telegraph
>
>
>Jerry, you know as well as I do that in the loaded lexicon of Irish
>politics, "Ulsterman" does not have the same meaning as "Northern
>Irish".
Leona, my Leona, is an honorary Ulster woman.. It's not loaded at all,
in fact much less so than Irish.
If the word Protestant was mentioned above you'd have a good point but
it's not so you only have a flimsy point. I'm Irish since i'm from the
island of Ireland, all it takes to be an Ulsterman is to be from
Ulster.... Now, just where is Ulster???? :-))
I do know what you mean though, i'd just rather get away from it all.
Did you know Ulster chieftains were buried standing up, with their
spears in their hands, facing south?
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
<tpw...@acer.gen.tcd.ie> wrote:
> In article <355c3272...@news.wwa.com>, Gerard Cunningham <Ger@r.d> wrote:
> >Alan D Red wrote:
> >
> >>Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham) wrote:
> >>why I still cant grasp??
> >
> >Because its bad history?
> >
>
> The historian Roy Foster, whom Shinners would consider a Brit apologist,
> once the Cruthin theory as 'fantasy'.
>
> Tom Walsh
Well that is a bit cruel it was actually Professor Eoin MacNeil who
really developed the theory based entirely on historical, mythological
and genealogical methodologies and without any reference to the evidence
of archeology and set up a map indicating the distribution in Ireland of
communities identified with the Cruithne.
It does correlate with Mahrs "riverford sites" presumably by accident. I
think MacAllister developed both these ideas further to suggest a
Turanian point of origin for the Cruithne that making them Baltic.
This is complicated by the fact that Dr Raftery who produced some of the
evidence for the "Riverford theory" by way of slates from inland
counties but he disocciates himself from the chronological and cultural
implications of the Riverford doctrine. Needless to say the implication
is that were was no possibility that the Cruithne had a celtic language.
Very few people went for the above in the early part of the century and
by the 1950s the ideas had run their course and it is now accepted the
Cruithne were Celtic. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any
cultural distinction between the Cruithne and other Gaels all the
earliest evidence we have suggests that they were as celtic as the rest
of the Island.
They did of course exist bit they were celtic.
Greig
--
hell...@cc.weber.edu
> >
> > Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
> > <3558f196...@news.whidbey.com>...
> > >On Tue, 12 May 1998 10:54:36 PDT, tip...@cygnus.wa.com (Bob
Tiptrie)wrote:
> >
> > >>What is "the Cruithin race theory?"
> > >>
> > >and being Q-Celts * adapted it to "Cruithin" (plural "Cruithni") to
> > >refer not only to the Picts but to immigrants from Britain to Ireland.
> > >rather than Lowland Scots, as I recollect.
> >
> > The explosive bit of the Cruthin theory (developed by Ian Adamson)
> > differentiates between Picts and Celts and argues that the Pictish
> > inhabitants of Ulster had to flee to Scotland from the Celtic invaders
> > and that the Scottish planters in the 17th century were descendants
> > from these very Picts. That makes - at least in the eyes of the
> > Unionist Cruthinologists - the Plantation a homecoming instead of an
> > invasion and is used to justify the claim of Ulster Protestants to
> > Northern Ireland.
> could the planters be Picts then?
>
weren't many of the people in the southern part of scotland angles originally?
from the time of the kingdom of bernicia and later?
HME (in utah)
hell...@cc.weber.edu
In article <3562bcea...@news.wwa.com>,
Ger@r.d wrote:
>
> jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
> >could the planters be Picts then?
>
> seems to be that Dal Riada was actually a Scottish kingdom formed by
> Irish Picts as the retreated from the advancing Gaels. The theory
> seems to be fuelled by a pathological need on that part of some
> unionists to distinguish themselves from Irish/Gaelic/Celtic
> nationalists.
>
> Gerard Cunningham
the Dalriadans were descendants of the ancient Erainn of Munster and
originally were supposed to have come from Kerry. the eponymous ancester of
the Dalriadans was Cairbre Riata, a prince of Munster, who may have lived in
Kerry during the late second century. according to some traditions, he led
his people into the north following a famine in Kerry. he is supposed to have
founded the kingdom of Dal Riata in Antrim, perhaps around 200 ad. the Irish
Cruithne lived in a small area to the south of Antrim. they were not the same
people. according to O'Rahilly the Erainn (and thus the Dalriadans) were
descendants of the old Firbolgs who spoke a p-celtic language (and only later
adopted gaelic after they were in Ulster). the Erainn were supposed to have
been Fir Bolgs who had alliances with the Gaels, whom O'Rahilly argues did not
arrive in Ireland until sometime between the late second century and the mid
first century bc (as the Eoghanacht and the Connacht). the Dalriadan kingdom
existed for in Antrim for several centuries and may have had an overseas
plantation in Argyll during this period (perhaps only for part of the time).
then, as the result of the northward advance of the Ui Neill, they invaded or
occupied part of Argyll (perhaps for a second time) somewhere between 475 and
possibly 498. the kingdom of Dalriada then continued with holdings in both
Antrim and Argyll until 637, at which time the Argyll Dalriadans lost all
their territory in Ulster to the Irish high king at the battle of Moira.
hel...@my-dejanews.com
In article <356168...@cableinet.co.uk>,..........
> > So, what is enthicity, if it has nothing to do with language, distance
> > and technology?
> not a lot
> > > The idea then, that an early Christian people could have fled to
Scotland,
> > > kept their identity for 1000 years and returned triumphant is ridiculous
> Talking of Churches, this sounds like a Mormon theory to me!
I don't think mormons have theories.
they have revelations.
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Gerard Cunningham wrote:
>
> hell...@cc.weber.edu wrote:
>
> >In article <355A1F...@cableinet.co.uk>,
> > jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
> >> could the planters be Picts then?
> >>
> >
> >from the time of the kingdom of bernicia and later?
>
And didn't settle in Pictish areas. Picts got down to Fife.
English-Saxons were struggling to get beyond midlothian.
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
hel...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <356168...@cableinet.co.uk>,
> jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > Alan Smaill wrote:
> > >
> > > ma...@indigo.ie (Matt Kelly) writes:
> > >
> ..........
>
> > > So, what is enthicity, if it has nothing to do with language, distance
> > > and technology?
> > not a lot
> > > > The idea then, that an early Christian people could have fled to
> Scotland,
> > > > kept their identity for 1000 years and returned triumphant is ridiculous
> > Talking of Churches, this sounds like a Mormon theory to me!
> I don't think mormons have theories.
> they have revelations.
> HME (in utah)
theories. Ever hear about how Smith, the Mormon prophet claimed there
were people dressed like Quakers on the moon? A theory, definitely.
Either that or the revealed Quakers left for Mars.
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
> > the Erainn were supposed to have
> >been Fir Bolgs
>
> I'm not sure where to begin with this..
>
> Jerry?
Weren't the Fir-Bolg the same as the Belgae?
Gerard Cunningham
Depends.
Do you think the Belgae fought the mythical Tuatha De Danann?
Gerard Cunningham
On Thu, 21 May 1998 09:35:08 -0800, tom mcvey wrote:
>In article <356f9c85...@news.wwa.com>, Ger@r.d wrote:
>
>
>> The Angles came after the Picts.
>>
>
>But what about the Gifs and the Jpegs?
They were pogrohtmlised.
snat...@ulster.nildram.co.uk
Gerard Cunningham <Ger@r.d> wrote:
> hell...@cc.weber.edu wrote:
>
> >In article <355A1F...@cableinet.co.uk>, jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> Picts came from North Scotland, the Planters came from the South. How
> >> could the planters be Picts then?
> >>
> >
> >weren't many of the people in the southern part of scotland angles
> >originally? from the time of the kingdom of bernicia and later?
>
> The Angles came after the Picts.
>
> -- Gerard Cunningham
He had a better "angle" though your "angle" is more accurate. Do they
say that in the USA?
Greig
--
Modra Dubh
Are these calm and reasonable gentlefolk the same rowdy and maniacal
crowd I joist with on SCI? Do you good people come here to recover from
your fits of madness?
-Conway
(Jerry, is that really you?)
(Next I'll be reading a discourse by Mister De Rouge on the meaning of
Arbor Day)
--
Bionn chuile dhuine lach go dteann bo ina gharrai