Eire and the Aryan Connection

[Arahari]

http://celto-germanic.blogspot.com/2...onnection.html


Ireland, Erin, Eireann or Eire represents probably the earliest place of settlement of the invading Aryan tribes from the east.
Irish mythology makes reference to five invasions. They are as follows:

The coming of the Partholan into Ireland.

The coming of the Nemed into Ireland.

The coming of the Firbolgs into Ireland.

The invasion of the Tuatha De Danaan.[The folk of the god whose mother is Dana].

The invasion of the Milesians[Sons of Miled] and the conquest of the Tuatha De Danaan.

We know that at least some of these if not all of the invading peoples were of Aryan stock.
As a minimum the Milesians are regarded as the ancestors of the Irish Gaels and the Tuatha De Danaan are widely referred to as the deities of the Irish people. In Irish mythology myth and history seem to blend and mortals and immortals do not appear to have such clear dividing lines between them as in say the Teutonic mythology.

The sciences of comparative linguistics, mythology and modern genetic testing all point to the Irish people having been in possession of Ireland from the earliest days of the Aryan dispersal.
It is conceiveable that the Aryans did not arrive in Ireland all at the same time but came in waves of immigration and possibly using different routes. Mythology tells us that the Milesians came by the way of Spain.

Ulick J. Bourke gives abundant linguiistical evidence in his Aryan Origin of the Gaelic Race and Language for the great antiquity of the Irish tongue putting it on a par with Sanskrit, Greek and Latin.

He has this to say about the various invasions:
"All these different migrations had come forth from the Keltic family home; and all spoke the same language. All were Aryan. Thus the ancient annals of Ireland accord most wonderfully with the teaching of the science of comparative philology."

One has only to look at the name or names of Ireland itself to see this ancient Aryan connection.

"For those who for whatever reason wish to resist the idea that the Celtic mythology and religion[as well as culture] is essentially based on Indo-European roots, it might be noted that the first element in the names Ire-land and Ira-n are the same liguistically, and both are related to the Arya-ns of India. Thus the great span of Indo-European culture, from the middle of Asia to the westernmost islands of Europe, can be seen in its full expanse from ancient times."
[Edred Thorsson , aka Dr Stephen Edred Flowers, The Book of Ogham]

This theme is further emphasised by Peter Berresford Ellis, author of various books on Celtic mythology, history and culture, "To demonstrate some of the similarities of vocabulary between Old Irish and Sanskrit, we may refer to the following: arya[freeman] in Sanskrit, from which that much maligned word Aryan comes from. In Old Irish, the cognate is aire meaning "a noble"." [The Mammoth Book of Celtic Myths and Legends].

In addition to the Aryan connection with the name Ire-land there is also the equally explicit connection with Er-in, Eire, Eireann[pronounced `Aryan`. The Ar Aryan prefix is cognate with Ir and Er and many examples of such connections may be found in other Indo-European languages. What they have in common is their meaning-Land of the Aryans, which is linguistically the same as Aryavarta[Sanskrit] or Iran/Eran.

The Aryan connection may also found in the names of some of the ancient Irish deities, eg Eremon. The name of this Irish god is cognate with Ariomanus a god from Celtic Gaul which in turn is cognate with the Sankrit Aryaman and the Iranian airyaman.[J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, The Oxford Introdution to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World].

According to Irish mythology Eremon was one of three Milesian leaders who set out for the conquest of Ireland. Initially he occupied the north but after a war he became victorious and ruled the whole of Ireland from the sacred centre of Tara.
Prior to this Ireland at one time was ruled by three Danaan kings. The wife of one of these kings was called Eriu. Her name has persisted through the course of time and in the dative form her name, Erinn is now a poetic name for Ireland or Eire.
Professor L. Austine Waddell writes: "And Ireland of the Irish-Scots has also its "Holy Isles", with very ancient remains, including a magnificent "prehistoric" fort of cyclopean masonry in the Hitt-ite style, in Galway Bay, and also significantly named "Aran" or "Arran", which like the name "Erin" and "Ir-land", in series with the "Airy-ana" or "Ir-an" or "Land of the Aryans" of the ancient Sun-worsipping Aryans in the Orient." [The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons].

[Psychonaut]

I'm curious, do you write these entries and run the blogs they're simulposted on or are they copy/pastes?

We know that at least some of these if not all of the invading peoples were of Aryan stock.

While the Celtic language family is certainly Indo-European, I don't think there's any evidence at all that the Irish blood is correspondingly IE. We know that the R1a1 y-dna haplogroup roughly corresponds to the expansion of the IE peoples (the peoples not the languages), yet R1a1 frequencies in Ireland only approach 0.5%. The dominant y-dna haplogroup on the island is R1b, which is widely believed to have been introduced to Europe in the Paleolithic era. Likewise, craniofacially, the dominant Irish morphotype is Bruenn, which is an unreduced Cro-Magnoid morphotype that is also thought to correspond to the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe. The Aryans are most strongly associated with the Corded (nearly all of the male Corded Ware bodies bear the R1a1 haplogroup) and Irano-Afghan morphotypes.

So, I'll agree that the Irish are culturally and linguistically IE, but I don't believe that there's much evidence to show that they're actually descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

[Arahari]

I'm curious, do you write these entries and run the blogs they're simulposted on or are they copy/pastes?



While the Celtic language family is certainly Indo-European, I don't think there's any evidence at all that the Irish blood is correspondingly IE. We know that the R1a1 y-dna haplogroup roughly corresponds to the expansion of the IE peoples (the peoples not the languages), yet R1a1 frequencies in Ireland only approach 0.5%. The dominant y-dna haplogroup on the island is R1b, which is widely believed to have been introduced to Europe in the Paleolithic era. Likewise, craniofacially, the dominant Irish morphotype is Bruenn, which is an unreduced Cro-Magnoid morphotype that is also thought to correspond to the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe. The Aryans are most strongly associated with the Corded (nearly all of the male Corded Ware bodies bear the R1a1 haplogroup) and Irano-Afghan morphotypes.

So, I'll agree that the Irish are culturally and linguistically IE, but I don't believe that there's much evidence to show that they're actually descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

The articles contained in my three blogs are my original material unless otherwise stated.
Regarding your argument that the Irish or Celtic language group is Indo-European but the Irish themselves are not Indo-European I find startling.
All the evidence points to the Indo-European colonisation of Ireland at the very beginnings of the Aryan dispersal. In terms of the language`s antiquity[Gaelic] it is on a par with Latin, Greek, Lithuanian and Sanskrit. I would have to ask you how is possible for a language as purely Indo-European as Old Irish to be brought to Ireland without any trace of non-Indo-European admixture by an entirely or almost entirely non-Indo-European people? It beggars belief!
I also must point out to you that the RIb haplogroup is THE predominate haplogroup throughout western Europe and its has a presence also in Iran and parts of India. Even the Tocharian mummies found in the Tarim Basin in China predominately had this haplogroup.
You will find that if you care to study the geographical division between the Centum and Satem Indo-European language groups that they broadly corelate with the western R1b[Centum] and the R1a [Satem] divisions. There is simply not enough evidence to support the theory[and theory is all that it is] that the original speakers of Indo-European were bearers of the R1a gene and only the R1a gene. It is a common but a fatal mistake to use language as the absolute or main idicator of race. We simply do not know enough about the migrations and history of our ancestors to know truth of this matter.
The R1a and R1b haplogroups are extremely closely related and point back to a common genetic ancestor for both groups. I defy you to find any significant racial difference between the bearers of both genes. Also remember that all of us will have a variety of haplogroups in our ancestry stretching back thousands of years. The only genes that are reliably traceable are the Y Chromosone and mtDNA haplogroups but this only paints part of the picture and tells us only part of a story.

[Psychonaut]

The articles contained in my three blogs are my original material unless otherwise stated.

All the evidence points to the Indo-European colonisation of Ireland at the very beginnings of the Aryan dispersal. In terms of the language`s antiquity[Gaelic] it is on a par with Latin, Greek, Lithuanian and Sanskrit. I would have to ask you how is possible for a language as purely Indo-European as Old Irish to be brought to Ireland without any trace of non-Indo-European admixture by an entirely or almost entirely non-Indo-European people?

Linguistic diffusion quite often takes place without a wholesale genetic takeover. A prime example would be the Norman conquest of Norther France. Although the Norman invaders were genetically North European (and the region remains so to this day), they adopted the Latin based French language within the span of a single generation. Something quite similar could have very easily happened during the formation of the Celtic ethnicity during their time in Central Europe where we have more or less even distributions of R1b and R1a. After a few pre-Celtic Upper Paleolithic groups were conquered in Eastern or Central Europe, the language could then have been carried Westward by R1b bearing indigenous Europeans, not Aryans.

I also must point out to you that the RIb haplogroup is THE predominate haplogroup throughout western Europe

Quite true.

and its has a presence also in Iran and parts of India.

Not really. According to the well sourced Wiki article, R1b frequency in India is only 0.55%. It does not list statistics for Iran, but the whole Middle East has very low frequencies of R1b.

Even the Tocharian mummies found in the Tarim Basin in China predominately had this haplogroup.

The Tarim mummies were not tested for y-dna, only for mt-dna.

You will find that if you care to study the geographical division between the Centum and Satem Indo-European language groups that they broadly corelate with the western R1b[Centum] and the R1a [Satem] divisions. There is simply not enough evidence to support the theory[and theory is all that it is] that the original speakers of Indo-European were bearers of the R1a gene and only the R1a gene. It is a common but a fatal mistake to use language as the absolute or main idicator of race. We simply do not know enough about the migrations and history of our ancestors to know truth of this matter.

The R1a and R1b haplogroups are extremely closely related and point back to a common genetic ancestor for both groups. I defy you to find any significant racial difference between the bearers of both genes. Also remember that all of us will have a variety of haplogroups in our ancestry stretching back thousands of years. The only genes that are reliably traceable are the Y Chromosone and mtDNA haplogroups but this only paints part of the picture and tells us only part of a story.

According to the Wiki articles, the split between R1a and R1b from R1 occurred around 18,500 years ago for R1b and between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago for R1a. This kind far predates the centum/satem split.

[Loki]

According to the Wiki articles, the split between R1a and R1b from R1 occurred around 18,500 years ago for R1b and between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago for R1a. This kind far predates the centum/satem split.

Good point. Genetically speaking, the Irish people are perhaps the most un-Aryan people on the European continent! It would appear that the "Aryan" (i.e. Indo-European) legacy in the Irish was mostly cultural and linguistic -- but that the overwhelming bulk of Irish genetic material far pre-dates any Aryan invasion of Europe. The Irish are, along with the Basques, very much aboriginal genetic Europeans.

[Arahari]

Good point. Genetically speaking, the Irish people are perhaps the most un-Aryan people on the European continent! It would appear that the "Aryan" (i.e. Indo-European) legacy in the Irish was mostly cultural and linguistic -- but that the overwhelming bulk of Irish genetic material far pre-dates any Aryan invasion of Europe. The Irish are, along with the Basques, very much aboriginal genetic Europeans.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the "Irish are perhaps the most un-Aryan people on the European continent" or is this just a simple example of blind fratricidal hatred?
How do you account for the presence of a pure Aryan culture and language but the lack of an Aryan carrier?

[Psychonaut]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the "Irish are perhaps the most un-Aryan people on the European continent" or is this just a simple example of blind fratricidal hatred?
How do you account for the presence of a pure Aryan culture and language but the lack of an Aryan carrier?

Why would it be based on hatred at all? The fact that the Irish are European Aboriginals means that their connection the Europe's soil runs deeper than that of any Indo-European who swept in from the East.

[Loki]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the "Irish are perhaps the most un-Aryan people on the European continent" or is this just a simple example of blind fratricidal hatred?

Hatred? Why hatred? The Irish are fine Europeans. The fact that they're not Aryans, doesn't take anything away from that.

I think the onus is on you to provide genetic evidence. The "Aryan" gene is commonly known to be R1a1. That gene is almost nonexistent among the Irish.

How do you account for the presence of a pure Aryan culture and language but the lack of an Aryan carrier?

Easy. Dominating peoples often rub off their cultures on invaded populations. Just look at South America -- totally Roman Catholic, but how many of them are of pure Spanish or Portuguese origin?

[Arahari]

Linguistic diffusion quite often takes place without a wholesale genetic takeover. A prime example would be the Norman conquest of Norther France. Although the Norman invaders were genetically North European (and the region remains so to this day), they adopted the Latin based French language within the span of a single generation. Something quite similar could have very easily happened during the formation of the Celtic ethnicity during their time in Central Europe where we have more or less even distributions of R1b and R1a. After a few pre-Celtic Upper Paleolithic groups were conquered in Eastern or Central Europe, the language could then have been carried Westward by R1b bearing indigenous Europeans, not Aryans.

But where is your evidence that a cultural takeover took place in Ireland without a genetic takeover? It simply isn`t there unlike the Norman conquest example. And unlike the Norman conquest where there is evidence of liguistic change it is not be found in the Irish tongue. Old Irish is as pure an Aryan language as any language can be and there is nothing unAryan in the mythology of the Irish people to indicate any Aryan elitist takeover of a majority unAryan population. Genetic evidence would be there if your theory was correct.. The Irish are one of the most racially homogenous populations in Europe and their relative geographical location has helped to ensure this. You have presented no evidence, merely theories.
The disribution and intensity of R1b is greater than R1a in western and central Europe.
Your theory falters when one considers the presence of R1b in the Iranian population. R1a has no Aryan primacy over the R1b and in fact the evidence is that the Nordic racial type is most greatly represented by the R1b.

Hatred? Why hatred? The Irish are fine Europeans. The fact that they're not Aryans, doesn't take anything away from that.

I think the onus is on you to provide genetic evidence. The "Aryan" gene is commonly known to be R1a1. That gene is almost nonexistent among the Irish.



Easy. Dominating peoples often rub off their cultures on invaded populations. Just look at South America -- totally Roman Catholic, but how many of them are of pure Spanish or Portuguese origin?

Your reasoning is without the presentation of actual evidence and in my opion is not unrelated to the general anti-Irish and anti-Celtic sentiment prevalent amongst Germanic peoples, most expecially by those who claim to be `racially aware` but are particularist in their sympathies.
You claim that the R1a gene is THE Aryan gene which I find quite amusing when most geneticists dsclaim the idea of an Aryan race or even the race concept itself!
The R1b gene is the most common gene found amongst native Indo-Europeans in the western and northern European living space so I am afraid the onus is on you to establish that I am wrong especially when the very same R1b may be found amongst the Iranians who claim for themselves the title of `Aryan`.

Easy. Dominating peoples often rub off their cultures on invaded populations. Just look at South America -- totally Roman Catholic, but how many of them are of pure Spanish or Portuguese origin?

But where is your GENETIC EVIDENCE for the existence of an Aryan invading culture carrier in Ireland that is seperate from the R1b majority population.

[Loki]

Your reasoning is without the presentation of actual evidence and in my opion is not unrelated to the general anti-Irish and anti-Celtic sentiment prevalent amongst Germanic peoples, most expecially by those who claim to be `racially aware` but are particularist in their sympathies.

No, I am not motivated by ethnic bias in this at all. Besides, Germans usually like Irish people more than English, which makes nonsense of your claim that Germanic peoples are inherently biased against Celts. Scandinavians also love the Irish. Maybe 1,500 years ago, but not this day.

You claim that the R1a gene is THE Aryan gene which I find quite amusing when most geneticists dsclaim the idea of an Aryan race or even the race concept itself!

Then why are you pushing the Aryan idea? It's completely irrelevant these days. There are no pure Aryans anymore. Modern Europeans are intermixed varieties of Indo-European and aboriginal European genetic stock.

But where is your GENETIC EVIDENCE for the existence of an Aryan invading culture carrier in Ireland that is seperate from the R1b majority population.

All that is left seems to be linguistic, after these millennia -- which is hardly surprising.