PDA

View Full Version : What the Irish and Scots don't want you to know



McCauley
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 07:23 AM
The Irish, Picts and Scots are a Scythian people originally from Central Asia in what is now modern day Russia.

Though they like to portray themselves as European and Celtic, they are infact an Asiatic Scythian people who have only been fraudulently calling themselves Celts since the year 1706 AD when they got a hold of a translation of a book written by the Frenchman Abbé Pezron's “Antiquité de la Nation et de la Langue des Celtes” which discussed more particularly the Celts, otherwise known as Gauls in Latin, of France and continental Europe.

...

It’s a truism that not one single ancient historian has ever labelled either the Scots, Picts or Irish as ever being a Celtic people but always a Scythian people. Here are a just few examples:

“the nation of the Picts, from Scythia, as is reported, putting to sea, in a few long ships, were driven by the winds towards the shores of Britain” Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Book I, Chapter I (8th century AD)

“Whereupon they [Britons] suffered many years under two very savage foreign nations, the Scots from the west, and the Picts from the north”
Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Book I, Chapter XII (8th century AD)


“the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and landing first in the northern part of Ireland” Anglo-Saxon Chronicles


“And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on condition that they chose their kings always on the female side; which they have continued to do, so long since. And it happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land.” Anglo-Saxon Chronicles


“…Pursuing fell the Scottish clans; the men of the fleet in numbers fell; 'midst the din of the field the warrior swate. Since the sun was up in morning-tide, gigantic light! glad over grounds, God's candle bright, eternal Lord! -- 'till the noble creature sat in the western main: there lay many of the Northern heroes under a shower of arrows, shot over shields; and Scotland's boast, a Scythian race” Anglo-Saxon Chronicles

“It was the invariable habit of the race, as it is also now, to be weak in repelling the missiles of enemies, though strong to bear civil strifes and the burdens of sins; weak, I say, to follow ensigns of peace and truth, yet strong for crimes and falsehood. The shameless Irish assassins, therefore, went back to their homes, to return again before long. It was then, for the first time, in the furthermost part of the island, that the Picts commenced their successive settlements, with frequent pillaging and devastation.” Gildas, The Ruin of Britain. 21 (6th century AD)

“Third devastation by Picts and Scots. As they were returning home, the terrible hordes of Scots and Picts eagerly come forth out of the tiny craft in which they sailed across the sea-valley, as on Ocean's deep, just as, when the sun is high and the heat increasing, dark swarms of worms emerge from the narrow crevices of their holes. Differing partly in their habits, yet alike in one and the same thirst for bloodshed ----in a preference also for covering their villainous faces with hair rather than their nakedness of body with decent clothing----these nations, on learning the departure of our helpers and their refusal to return, became more audacious than ever, and seized the whole northern part of the land as far as the wall, to the exclusion of the inhabitants.” Gildas, The Ruin of Britain. 19 (6th century AD)

According to “The Descent of the Gaels” by James Grant, and Edinburgh Advocate, and published in 1814 AD, the early Scots were known as Scyths. That, according to Grant, was the confirmed opinion of such old Roman writers as Radulphus, Claudian, Isidore and others. This portion of the Scythian hordes is supposed to have come to Britain from Scythia via Scandinavia.

Later this article goes on to say


Their quest to portray themselves as Celts and Europeans is just a fraudulent attempt to steal the identity of the real Celtic Europeans in order to hide from sight their not so popular but true Scythian Afro-Asiatic origins.

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=537977

OneEnglishNorman
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 08:04 AM
Disgusting article :thumbdown


In essence, the Irish and Scots are a parasitical people who are trying to steal not only the identity of real Celtic people but the wonderful history and culture that belongs to all genuine Celtic peoples of Western Europe. Such an example is the use of bagpipes, a musical instrument used throughout continental Europe. This instrument is still used in many genuine Celtic nations like Portugal, Galicia, Spain and France in its proper form and not in the corrupt and uncultured manner it is currently being mismanaged by the Scythian Scots.The whole Celtic "thing" leads to confusion and even mis-labelling peoples related to the Irish/Scots as Celts. We need to generate an understanding in Britain that the Celts are important, but there were also native British elements who were influenced and ultimately consumed/melded with the Continental incomers.

I don't know if the cultural/historian elite in Ireland and Scotland are guilty of monopolising Celtic culture for themselves. Possibly an element of truth to that.

BTW I'm sceptical of the importance the article places on the Scythians & Scotland, perhaps someone else can enlighten us.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 08:37 AM
There is just no evidence, whatsoever, that the Scythians had any connectioin to anything in the British Isles. The history of the Irish and Scots seems to be well understood in the whole. The Picts are somewhat more mysterious but the are generally considered to be Celts, perhaps the first migration from Iberia. New genetic evidence seems to back this up.

Rhydderch
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 04:03 PM
What probably happened is that the early Irish scholars traced their ancestry to a people living somewhere around where the Scythians were, and with a relatively similar lifestyle; so they decided they were of Sythian ancestry.

There are cultural similarities, interestingly enough, and indeed the Scythian skulls are very similar to those of the Celts in France and the British Isles. Perhaps they did have a common origin.

The Scythians are thought to have been Indo-Iranian speakers, if I remember rightly. Nothing to do with "Afro-Asiatics".

Oswiu
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 08:34 PM
Oh for Christ's sake! Irish pseudohistorians after the Conversion were desperate to tie in the history of their people with those of Classical and Biblical history.
The Romans called the Irish pirates 'Scotti', and some cleric with half an education decided that this looked a bit like the word Scythian, never mind the fact that the two words in their respective languages sound NOTHING alike!

PreChristian Irish knew nothing of such foreign peoples, and traced their genealogies to Otherworld Ancestor Deities like Conn, Eogan, Nuada, and so on.

Eberhardt
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 05:07 AM
"the Celtic culture and language came into existence around 1200BC and probably originated from the Indo-European Bronze Age cultures of central Europe and the Balkans, the cradle of this early Celtic culture is believed to have been in western Rumania and Hungary"

http://www.geocities.com/reginheim/celts.html

That's somewhat close to where the Scythians were known to be, so maybe that's where the confusion is.

And I'd like to know why so many people hate the Celts now a days? It seems everyone is trying to make up shit to destroy the Celtic culture.

Oswiu
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 03:13 PM
"the Celtic culture and language came into existence around 1200BC and probably originated from the Indo-European Bronze Age cultures of central Europe and the Balkans, the cradle of this early Celtic culture is believed to have been in western Rumania and Hungary"

http://www.geocities.com/reginheim/celts.html

That's somewhat close to where the Scythians were known to be, so maybe that's where the confusion is.
Ooh, I don't like this at all! This Pannonian basin origin is good for the Indo Europeans as a whole, I'd say, but not for the Celts in particular. I'd put the scene of the loss of Indo European initial P [the Celtic equivalent of Grimm's Law for the Germanic languages] further to the west, between the sources of the Danube and the Rhine, roughly Austria, Bavaria, Wuerttemberg sort of area. That's the linguistic base anyway, but I'd place the more familiar Celtic culture's beginnings in eastern Gaul/Baden-Wuerttemberg, were they would have encountered nonIE people of the old western European stock, and adopted a lot of their notions of the Otherworld.

And I'd like to know why so many people hate the Celts now a days? It seems everyone is trying to make up shit to destroy the Celtic culture.
To tell the truth I haven't noticed this. Why do you get such an impression?

Rhydderch
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 01:35 AM
Oh for Christ's sake! Irish pseudohistorians after the Conversion were desperate to tie in the history of their people with those of Classical and Biblical history.

There is an attempt to intertwine their own history with Biblical and Classical, but it's not all "pseudo". There is plenty in it which has nothing to do with the Bible or Classics.

The journey they claim their ancestors made is exactly that of the Bronze Age Dinarids, interestingly enough. The basic time-frame fits as well.


The Romans called the Irish pirates 'Scotti', and some cleric with half an education decided that this looked a bit like the word Scythian, never mind the fact that the two words in their respective languages sound NOTHING alike!Yes, that's quite likely, but necessarily that alone.


PreChristian Irish knew nothing of such foreign peoples, and traced their genealogies to Otherworld Ancestor Deities like Conn, Eogan, Nuada, and so on.I'm not claiming they previously knew anything of the Scythians, I'm suggesting the possibility of them discovering the Scythians and deciding that they were descended from them.

Oswiu
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 01:48 AM
There is an attempt to intertwine their own history with Biblical and Classical, but it's not all "pseudo". There is plenty in it which has nothing to do with the Bible or Classics.
Oh absolutely, there's stuff worth looking at in them, but it applies more to mythology than history.
The most striking thing is the attempt to make the Gaels there ab origine, when all Irish folk tradition spoke of their relative recent arrival. Making Mil Espaine [the name is a scholarly invention and is simply Latin for the Spanish soldier] the leader of such an early invasion distorts everything else in the account.

The journey they claim their ancestors made is exactly that of the Bronze Age Dinarids, interestingly enough. The basic time-frame fits as well.
The chronologies and King lists don't even work out for the fifth century, never mind millenia BC.
I was horrified to realise this, but detailed examination of the texts and the onomastica make it inescapable. :(

Bridie
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 01:53 AM
Very misleading there McCauley. :sway ;) It is not an "article", (trying to give it credibility?) it's merely a post by some unknown (probably not even a professional) person in a discussion forum. The nature of the discussion forum itself suggests subjectivity and casts doubt on this opinion/selective interpretation too, as far as I'm concerned....

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/index.php

Rhydderch
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 02:27 AM
Oh absolutely, there's stuff worth looking at in them, but it applies more to mythology than history.
The most striking thing is the attempt to make the Gaels there ab origine, when all Irish folk tradition spoke of their relative recent arrival.How recent? The story I have in mind certainly has the Gaels as the last in a succession of invaders.

The mythology is where the history would be contained.


The chronologies and King lists don't even work out for the fifth century, never mind millenia BC.
I was horrified to realise this, but detailed examination of the texts and the onomastica make it inescapable. :(Chronologies can appear not work out due some kings reigning at the same time etc.

Do you know how far out the chronology is?

Oswiu
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 02:44 AM
I assume you're working with the accounts built around the Lebor Gabala?

How recent? The story I have in mind certainly has the Gaels as the last in a succession of invaders.
But it then goes on to portray the preGaelic Laginian Invasion [see Labraid Loingsech] as a mere returning of Gaelic exiles, and likewise for its account of the true historical first Gaels; Mug Nuadat and Tuathal Techtmar, both of whom are represented as returning to an already centuries old Goidelic ascendancy.

The mythology is where the history would be contained.
Chronologies can appear not work out due some kings reigning at the same time etc.
Do you know how far out the chronology is?
The best thing I can do here is refer you to T. F. O'Rahilly's Early Irish History and Mythology 1947

Rhydderch
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 06:50 AM
I assume you're working with the accounts built around the Lebor Gabala?Yes, if I remember rightly. There might be others as well though.


But it then goes on to portray the preGaelic Laginian Invasion [see Labraid Loingsech] as a mere returning of Gaelic exiles, and likewise for its account of the true historical first Gaels; Mug Nuadat and Tuathal Techtmar, both of whom are represented as returning to an already centuries old Goidelic ascendancy.
Possibly what they were trying to do was portray all (or at least most) of the invaders as having a common Gaelic origin; give them some sort of unity.


The best thing I can do here is refer you to T. F. O'Rahilly's Early Irish History and Mythology 1947Is that available online?

Oswiu
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 04:47 PM
Possibly what they were trying to do was portray all (or at least most) of the invaders as having a common Gaelic origin; give them some sort of unity.
Tjat's exactly what they were doing, yes.

Is that available online?
I don't know. Do a search.

Here's an exact phrase that I doubt will be in many other bits of writing;


To our forefathers of a few centuries ago the history of Ireland appeared to be known, at least in outliine, continuously from a few thousand years B. C. down to their own time.

Dropkick
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 11:58 PM
It looks like a political article. There are many of those nowadays since immigration to Ireland about 10 years ago.

DNA can solve many arguments.

Oxenfoord
Monday, November 6th, 2006, 02:22 PM
I think we need to take a step back and look at what history meant to people in the Middle Ages. It was not, necessarily, a statement of truth. Gildas is treated with considerable scepticism in medieval studies. He was rather extreme in his description of all the attrocities visited upon the Britons by the Anglo-Saxons. The latter weren't saints, by any manner of means, but that wasn't the point. It was propaganda on behalf of the Britons that spurred on old Gildas.

Whereas the Venerable Bede seems to have tried assiduously to be objective in his 'History of English Church and People', he was no better-informed than anyone else in early-medieval Northumbria. They simply didn't know where anyone came from. Scythia was a name that had come down to them, probably from Greek and Roman travel writers like Heroditus.

Robert the Bruce cited Scythia as the point of origin of the Scots when writing to the Irish and asking for a measure of support. He claimed a common ancestry for both before his brother invaded the island and the Scots proved to be no better than the English in their treatment of their 'cousins'.

If the Scots and other so-called Celts were from Scythia, it would be immediately clear from the extensive DNA tests that have been conducted over the last few years. All these tests show are that the population of England and Scotland are pretty much indistinguishable. Some people show surprising degrees of unusual genes. Press stories in the last week claim that Carol Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher's daughter, has a high level (25%, I think I read) of Middle-Eastern ancestry, so it can get about. It should be remembered, however, that considerable numbers of 'Romans' who served in the legions, settled here. In the Roman tradition, legions from Britannia would be posted to the opposite end of the Roman Empire. Equally, it worked the other way round too. In the Newcastle area, for instance, there is a genetic legacy of Syrians who were once based there.

I would suggest taking any suggestion that the Irish, Scots or Picts are Scythians with a large pinch of salt or, alternatively, get into the real world.:)

sheriff skullface
Monday, November 6th, 2006, 08:40 PM
I'd have to call that article a psuedo-anthropology hoax, the Irish, Gaulish and Scottish Celtic tribes came to western europe from the southern Alpine

Reiver
Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 10:11 PM
Neither y haplo testing nor mitchondrial dna supports this, quite the opposite. However Celts were a common culture and language more than a race. R and I (scandinavian) we know most of these had common ancestors going back a 15oo years or so in the Islands.Highlanders and Old irish fmaily share common genetics and britons(border English) and Welsh share others. Goidelic and Brithonic langauges split off well over 2000 years ago.