Unbelievably this all started because, on reading recent literature about the history of Ireland and Scotland, I was struck by how the currently-accepted version of history was so at odds with the archeological, linguistical, and anthropomorphical evidence, the historical accounts that were written by independent observers (e.g, the Greeks, and subsequently, the Romans), and the accepted views of, say, 100 years ago. This appears to be another example of how "history" is rewritten to be compatible with the political aspirations of the writers and their sponsors - a common theme - that deserves a different forum!
Let me simply state, as a sweeping generalisation, that the physical charcteristics of the present inhabitants of Ireland (predominantly dark-haired, pale skinned, blue-eyed, small-boned) bear little resemblance to the Celtic peoples described in great detail by the Greeks (Celtoi) and Romans (Celtae). Instead they resemble the "Britannic" peoples noted by the Romans as being of an older stock than the "Red-haired Celts" whom the Romans had pursued from Northern Gaul (present-day Belgium) into Britain. The majority of the Irish population, North and South, appear to be largely derived of a stock historically referred to in Ireland as "Pictish", but certainly NOT "Gaelic" or "Celtic". Furthermore the Northeners and the Southerners appear to have been at war for over 2000 years, as evidenced by the carbon-dated defensive fortifications that ran from Donegal on the Western Atlantic Coast, to the Irish Sea on the East (near Dundalk), discovered as the "Black Pig's Dyke". The resources required to build a south-facing defensive line across the entire island of Ireland indicate the existence of a cohesive culture in the North, dedicated to preserving their existence in the face of aggressors from the South. Some would say that that situation still exists today. |
