Irish are Really the Sons of Mil

Originally posted by toyomotor beorna: There is a good article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts. You may also care to read J.P. Mallorys Book "The Origins of the Irish". Barry Cunliffe is also worth reading. There are so many scientists who now say that the Celts entered Ireland between about 500BCE and 100 CE, that the evidence really is overwhelming.

The problem with the Celts is, that we have no data before the 5th century and that reliable informations are much younger. Celts are the carriers of the La-Tene-culture, which evolved from the western hallstatt. The hallstatt is differentiated into a western and a eastern part. The eastern part is or evolved to Illyric. So it is as well not sure whether we can already call the people of the western hallstatt celts or if they were not indoeuropeans who evolved into Celts. That*s why I would support any thesis which lets the Celts be much older than 600 BC.
We should as well not expect, that Celts from the eastern France or germany went directly to Ireland. So a Celtic migration to Britain must be older than one to Ireland. The oldest evidence in Britain for celts is probably the Arras culture from the 5th century.

Originally posted by toyomotor It's not feasible that Ireland remained unoccupied until the Celts arrived, and there is archeological evidence that points to occupation by people from England and Europe, mainly in the form of weapons and personal items, but also in the construction of homes. Some may have migrated by land bridge, but it seems that the majority of the earliest migration may have been by sea.

Of course was Ireland not unoccupied before the Celts. Allthough genetic data is problematically, it seems to be allowed, to connect the pre-celtic inhabitants of Ireland with populations in western gaul and on the Iberian peninsula and of course with pre-celtic populations in Britain.

Originally posted by toyomotor I haven't read anything authoritative about possible origins of Miletius, whether he was Celtic, Spanish or Egyptian, but I could agree that he actually existed. As for the Book of Invasions-give me a break, it's a book of fairy tales. (Read Wars of the Irish Kings by David Willis McCullough).

Yes, I agree. It is widely a book of mythic stories and biblical fiction.

Originally posted by toyomotor I agree with you in that I would also like to see evidence of Celtic existence prior to 600BC. They didn't just appear in a puff of smoke! I would also like to see more evidence of the Celtic origins, although experts say that they originated on the Iberian Peninsula, they share many similarities with Eastern Europeans.

The problem is, what is a Celt. usually this has to be answered by a linguistic definition. But linguistic evidence is missing for the early times and if we get written sources about the Celts it is often not contemporarily and first of all second hand knowledge.

Well, "experts say....", this is so not correct. Only a minority of experts, especially Cunliffe suppose a western origin of Celts, based e.g. on research like those by Koch about the tartessian inscriptions, which Koch interpretates as Celtic. But this is widely rejected.

Originally posted by toyomotor Yes, I agree. After years of research and discussion, it seems that no really satisfactory answer to the origins of the Celts has been produced.

There is widely satisfying theory about the origins of the Celts. And the knowledge about other people in that eras is not better.

Originally posted by toyomotor But the majority still prefer the Iberian Peninsula as the "birthplace" of the Celts.

Well, that is simply not correct.

Pretty much every generation that made its way into Ireland according to myth came out of Scythia.  Even Mil came out of Scythia according to the myth.  But there is physical evidence to corroborate a Scythian-Celtic connection.  The fact that the Irish were so adamant that they came out of Scythia, and the Scots, and the Saxons, and the Swedes must mean that there was at least a cultural connection to the Scythians.  

If they're wearing the same clothes, using the same weapons, and their art is Scythian then their must have been a connection.

Sweden is derived from Swithiod or Scythia...

Originally posted by mojobadshah Pretty much every generation that made its way into Ireland according to myth came out of Scythia.  Even Mil came out of Scythia according to the myth.  But there is physical evidence to corroborate a Scythian-Celtic connection.  The fact that the Irish were so adamant that they came out of Scythia, and the Scots, and the Saxons, and the Swedes must mean that there was at least a cultural connection to the Scythians.

I tend to agree with you. I've always suspected that the Celtic migration was from east to west but I've been over-ruled by people far more knowledgeable on the topic. It seems to me that far too little research has been done in the Pontic Steppe area and its people. The fact that no evidence has been found yet does not mean that it isn't there.

correction: 3rd century CE

Originally posted by beorna Originally posted by mojobadshah It seems like there is a question as to whether there is physical evidence of a Scythian-Celtic connection.  Is what I've been reading about Scythian forms of clothing, Scythian styled weaponry, and Scythian artforms found in Celtic areas and Scandinavia false?  I would not doubt that the Scythians were in Europe.  They traveled as far east as Japan.  The Iranians in general traveled as far south as Cambodia and Sri Lanka, discovered Australia, and may have even made their way over to the New World in the 3rd century BCE if the Hushein story checks out.  There are cimmero-scythian raids known to Middle europe and we know, that trading connections weren't local in that far days, but already widespread. With such trading foreign styles became known, like the scythian animal style in art. But that is something different than a great scythian migration or that celts and saxons were Scythians. There is also great western and mediterranian e.g. etruscan influence on Celts, which is not making Celts Etruscans.

I'm not saying the Celts are Iranian.  The Celts speak Celtic languages and the Iranians speak Iranian languages.  The Iranians who migrated to Europe became the aristocracy.  Clovis called himself a Sicambri "Scythian."  The Queen of England, and all the Presidents of the U.S.A. except for maybe Obama, their line can be traced back to the Scythians.  I don't find it hard to believe their were migrations into Europe including Ireland that left an effect that is lasting to today.       

Originally posted by beorna Originally posted by mojobadshah I'm not saying the Celts are Iranian.  The Celts speak Celtic languages and the Iranians speak Iranian languages.  The Iranians who migrated to Europe became the aristocracy.  Clovis called himself a Sicambri "Scythian."  The Queen of England, and all the Presidents of the U.S.A. except for maybe Obama, their line can be traced back to the Scythians.  I don't find it hard to believe their were migrations into Europe including Ireland that left an effect that is lasting to today.        But shouldn't such an Iranian aristocracy leave some traces? Shouldn't there be a remarkable difference between an iranian aristocratical culture and its findings and those of the common people? Do you have any evidence for your theory? Not Clovis called himself a Scythian, but Gregor of Tours used the term Sicambri. But why do you translate Sicambri as Scythian? The Queen of England traces her line back to the Scythians? I am able to trace my noble ancestors far back in time and I even share ancestors with the queen. I can tell you, that there is no Scythian among them, who can be proven. And I strongly doubt, that the US presidents can trace their origins back to the Scythians.

The Plantagenets were a junior branch of the House of Anjou whose senior branch was the House of Vere whose ancestry was jointly Pictish and Merovingian descending from the ancient Grail House of Scythia.

The Sicambri were Scythians.