“Ten thousand years of history crammed into 50 minutes..”
If the first programme was likely to offend the young-Earthers, and the second the not necessarily mutually exclusive grouping of neo-creationists, the third might work for everyone else. The BBC NI natural history series Blueprint ends tonight by tackling People, BBC1 9pm. Those more easily digested clips will be online later. As presenter Will Crawley says it on his blog
“The programme starts at Mountsandel, near Coleraine, the site of the earliest [known] human settlement in Ireland. We use computer imaging technology to rebuild the Mountsandel settlement, then follow the story of our Bronze Age ancestors as they made their home here. From Mountsandel, the story widens to take in a great sweep of history, including the ancient kings of Ireland, the arrival of Christianity, the Plantation, the Famine, and the urbanisation of modern Ireland. Ten thousand years of history crammed into 50 minutes of television.”
There might be some earlier supernatural beliefs mentioned.. and they might even attempt to explain why there is no Celtic section in the National Museum of Ireland. Oh, but don’t expect an apology for what the Vikings did 1,000 years ago.. Adds Well it certainly benefited, in comparison with the first two programmes, from dealing with a relatively short period of history. Still a bit thread-bare in parts though. But amibitious. And that’s worth applauding.
Peter – waht’s with your thing about not calling things Celtic – surely it’s as good a word as any? Have you a better one?
My thing, Dewi?
It’s the National Museum of Ireland’s thing. ;op
Pete – but they ain’t got a better word – it’s a bunch of people with linguistic connections – what’s the big deal?
It’s about scientific principles, Dewi.
The term is a modern invention.
So call yourself celtic by all means.
But it’s a term that doesn’t apply, and would not be recognised, by any of the people in our history – to whom some seek to apply it.
Wrong Peter – languages of these islands have connections established by Edward Llwyd in C17 – he termed those people Celtic – for want of a better word. The connections apply whatever the word. And this ain’t a political point believe it or not – merely factual.
Dewi
I’ll just add that the programme didn’t deal with that objection.
Instead they just pointed out that there is the complete absence of any evidence for an invasion by the Celtic tribes of Europe.
And then outlined the development of what is now termed Celtic artwork in Ireland.
In particular the influence of Germanic animal art and Viking knotwork.
Dewi
“he termed those people Celtic”
Indeed. See the link in the original post.
17th Century = modern invention.
Pete – you are preaching…it’s just a descriptive word – Llwyd used it to describe a bunch of closely connected languages – a fantastic bit of scholarly study at the time. My only point is that “Celtic” will do as well as any other word.
…and believe it or not he would have rather have used the word “British” (which before that we used to use) but it had got hijacked by a bunch of Prod planters……Sorry
“My only point is that “Celtic” will do as well as any other word.”
To describe those languages in the modern age, probably.
“…and believe it or not he would have rather have used the word “British” (which before that we used to use) but it had got hijacked by a bunch of Prod planters……Sorry”
No need to apologise, Dewi. That’s a similar point to the one made in the links in the original post.
Dewi,
Actually I thought the linguistic elements were something that wasnt done too well in the show.
I mean they could have got a linguist in rather than an archaelogist.
They should have pointed out that a brythonic celtic tongue has been overlaid (or radically altered) with a q-type tongue.
PS the original political conoctation of the word ‘celtic’ was perjorative, no?
PPS, I have never thanked ye Welsh men for the nice nick-name, Goidel. Thanks, I’ll keep it anyway!
“PS the original political conoctation of the word ‘celtic’ was perjorative, no? ”
No – academic – in the good sense of being scholarly. My only point in all above was that it was as good a word as any other – Nos Da…. and why does everyone on Slugger speak Welsh?
This has been on of the greatest disasters in BBC NI history, given the fortune spent on it and promo. Week 2′s viewing figures were half of those for week 1. Make of that what you will.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TKX4m_l1_Qk&feature=related
Can’t help it – and apologise – but Cerys is home!
Loved this series and everyone I know is talking about it. More of this please BBCNI. I am no fan of the tv license fee, but this is worth it. Unlike quiz shows which are best left to commercial tv.
p.s., a comment on your use of square brackets Peter. You add the word [known] to the description of Mountsandel. Fair enough, it is the earliest known human settlement. Let’s not get pedantic here though. You could just as easily add the world [known] to every archaeological or historical fact.
“PS the original political conoctation of the word ‘celtic’ was perjorative, no?”
The term “American” was also a British perjorative that British colonials never called themselves at the time.
Pete is right that we should be careful about applying modern names to people who wouldn’t have used the word themselves.
PS, Yes, I’m sure that “American” is still a perjorative!
Isn’t the problem with using the word ‘Celtic’ was that it properly applied to a different set of people from middle Europe who created the Hallstat culture ?
And that the Irish (and other Atlantic Isles peoples
) ) were lumped in with the Celts when really, they weren’t ?
Because no-one in the middle europe survives calling themselves Celtic anymore, it is easy for the Irish, who were designated that from outside incorrectly, to use the term Celtic, especially when no other word exists to designate the pre anglo/saxon/jute invasions ?
after so much usage the term sticks, even if, technically, it is incorrect. IMHO.
Bore Da Dewi.
Well, as you say I think celtic (
But as far as I am concerned the use to the word celtic and its savage connoctations were popularised by the the English, French etc, regardless of academic considerations.
There is a good book on the subject, ‘Iarsmaí Teanga’ by Torlach Mac Con Mide.
Of course, Gaelic speaking peoples refered to themselves as Gaels, but more commonly used clann and tribal disignations, they had no idea that Gaelic was related to Brythonic.
Let us not forget that when the English began to tolerate the Irish language in the Education system they insisted on calling it Celtic.
There are two very good accesible and user friendly publications that are on sale now for all to read and learn about our ancient past…
‘THE ATLANTEAN IRISH’ by Bob Quinn.
‘BLOOD OF THE ISLES’ by Bryan Sykes.
Briefly, conclusions drawn by modern archaeologists and geneticists say that we, in these Isles including Northern France and Northern Spain are all basically comprised of the same genetic material. The ‘Celts’, the Picts, etc … all have the same bedrock of genes. There is only a ‘dent’ as such in this genetic makeup of England from the successful waves of invasions.
Piecing the bits of the jigsaw together, it may be the case that the very first people came to these shores from Spain via the Atlantic seaboard as well. There is strong evidence proving that Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Britanny, and the Basque region has had seafairing connections that date back thousands of years. Hence, the common bond with language, music and culture etc… These bonds can be linked too with North Africa, hence in the programme last night it was mentioned that a skeleton of a Barbery ape was found in the ancient Navan Fort or Emain Mhaca as gaeilge, at Co Armagh.
Also similar ancient stone constructions can be found in all these places, ie similar spirals carved on the ancient stones at Newgrange, Co Meath can be found in North Africa.
So the myth of the Milesians could have some truth.
Recently Europes oldest human was unearted in a region in Spain.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/europes-oldest-human-unearthed-in-spain/2008/03/27/1206207257660.html
It is the case too, that the Irish language did not just arrive with these assortments of people called the ‘Celts’ but evolved over time from a much older language that was established here already thousands of years ago. So the ‘Celtic’ languages of these islands may have have derived from an older language.
Pardon the plug, but all this and more is explained in both books I mentioned.
Celtic schmeltic. What about the genocidal cull of Irish people in Ireland, better known as the famine? You’d think it was all a problem with the potato, when it was a problem with the english.
It was a problem with the potato. You’re the one with an English problem.
The one pertinent fact to me about the famine and English failings is that when there were crop failings prior to 1801 and the act of Union the Protestant Parliament in Dublin suspended all food exports. The Westminster parliament couldn’t be bothered doing this.
Well said mani. There was a great hunger but no famine. An english cull.
Couple of small points. Talking about Movanagher, Crawley said one of it’s advantages was a nearby commercial port (Coleraine) which linked it with the ‘rest of Britain’ Who writes this cr*p? Also states that ‘lios’ was the Irish for ‘rath’. Is this true?
Gréagóir O’ Frainclín,
do the books you mention make any guess to the percentage of English that derive genetically from this ancient common British isles/Northern French/Spanish people ?
And if they do, do they state the process they use to come to that result ?
Abucs,
I have read heard about this. 70% of people in England and I think about 90% of people in Scotland and Ireland.
Thanks manichaeism.
Gordan Brown might have something new to work with ?
)
Pancho’s Horse
I think “rath” is the Irish for “rath”.
The programme was groundbreaking in many ways.
Linguistic, cultural, religious and historical references don’t mean a damn thing when compared to a drawing on a wall in Belfast.
No horned helmets found in Ireland. Expensive items. Roman reports suggest most Gauls didn’t wear helmets. When they did they were usually skullcap types.
Very few examples of stiffened linen corslets found in Greece, but it’s pretty certain they used them.
The Irish never called themselves Celts.
The Gauls didn’t either. The bloody Greeks used the name to describe a bunch of marauders who trampled them on the way through to Asia Minor and who they had previously used as mercenary troops in the Peloponnesian war.
Irish art strays from traditional Celtic in that it includes elements of Norse! Of course it does. No other autonomous Celtic society lasted long enough to adopt elements of other cultures.
The Vikings never conquered the North!
Does that mean they conquered the South?
Just how far back does the border go?
Were the Vikings stopped at a customs post and turned back?
The BBC were OK when they stuck to birds, bees and lava flows. People and history, now that’s never really been their strong point, has it.
Rath indicates a ringfort accroding to the programme. I believe that is accurate. Celtic identity is is complex according to historians, an any simpleminded attempt to describe a discrete Celtic people group is not backed up by the evidence. The name keltoi was indeed used by the greeks, but that doesn’t answer the question of irish identity. The vikings didn’t conquer the north – what part of that statement is inaccurate? The prob didnt stop in the north because they were repelled and found more interesting ports along the coast. I will be using the history programme when I teach an overview of irish history. It was a superb effort. Precisely, by the way, what our license fee should be spent on!
The show was good – many in the north probably learned more about the plantation from the last prog. than they were ever taught in school – but it was extremely general.
Far too much emphasis was placed on the lack of a fullscale ‘Celtic’ invasion. It’s common knowledge that genetically the population of Ireland and western Britain has hardly changed in the last few thousand years. It’s as if the BBC went out of their way to play down a ‘Celtic’ past, when poeple realise it’s simply a term.
Linguistically, the term Celtic is very valid as no other term exists to describe the existant indigenous languages of Ireland/Scotland/Man/Cornwall/Brittany.
Also, i’ve never heard of horned Celtic warriors.
For those interested:
Lios is Irish for Ring Fort or Fairy Mound.
Rath is Irish for Ring Fort or Earthen Rampart.
Dewi, edifar!
Just noticed i missed Cymru from the list above.
RG,
Should point out that Lios can mean ‘enclosure’ as well, for ewample, Lios na Searrach ‘enclosure of the foals’.
It is not unheard of also for a rath to lie within a lios.
Aye, i take it they basically mean the same thing, with a Lios sometimes probably being a bit bigger and having a fairy connection the odd time too.
“The show was good – many in the north probably learned more about the plantation from the last prog than they were ever taught in school – but it was extremely general.”
One of the reasons why Unionists are rather aloof and unsympathetic about Irish culture and history. England’s exploits are more of a concern!
“Rath indicates a ringfort accroding to the programme. I believe that is accurate.”
The programme stated “..lios, which is the Irish for fort.”?
“The vikings didn’t conquer the north – what part of that statement is inaccurate?”
I think the statement is misleading.
The Vikings didn’t conquer Ireland. They raided and established colonies.
Eventually the autonomous colonies were brought under indigenous control.
“Celtic identity is is complex according to historians, an any simpleminded attempt to describe a discrete Celtic people group is not backed up by the evidence.”
A particular viewpoint. Many historians would disagree. The Celtic Dept. of QUB, for example, devotes quite a lot of it’s modules to this “simpleminded” view.
“The name keltoi was indeed used by the greeks, but that doesn’t answer the question of irish identity.”
Wasn’t meant to. The programme presented the fact that the Irish didn’t call themselves “Celts” as in some way significant.
“The prob didnt stop in the north because they were repelled and found more interesting ports along the coast.”
Where and when?
Incidentally, the monasery under discussion in the part of the programme was at Strangford. Ring any bells?
“I will be using the history programme when I teach an overview of irish history.”
Dear God!
Above should read “..lios, which is Irish for rath”.
Oh dear. Back to school.
Not yours, hopefully.
lios , rath
the lios is often surrounded by the rath although the two terms are often used to denote a fort with earthen walls. Around Crossmaglen there is Liseraw, Corliss, Rathkeeland, Liscalgot to name a few of many. Either lios or rath is found in folklore denoting a fairy fort. W.B. Yeats once asked an old man in Sligo if he knew anything about the fairies and the old fella replied, “Amn’t I annoyed with them!”
longlake,
“the lios is often surrounded by the rath”
I assure you it is the other way round.
Observer,
“..lios, which is Irish for rath”.
They were in error.
You dont think the Celtic department at queens might have a dog in this race?!
Hope not!
Lios is larger than a rath & generally has some stone work involved. A Dun is generally bigger that both of them & is Iron Age in pedigree, thus being of later construction. Thats what they told us when I was studying archeology. Although its not always as cut & dry as that.
As to the “Celtic” thing it was a perjorative phrase used by the Greeks “Keltoi” in the same way the Saxons refered to the peeople of Cymru, cumbria & cornwall as “Welsh” ie “the strange ones”
“Welsh” i.e “the strange ones” – “Foreigners” more appropriate than “stange ones” surely – LOL.
GG – you said before that u thought the Gaels had no idea language was related to Brythonic. – I wonder – I’m away but when I get home I’ll do some research on it. From my prejudiced ~Celtic nationalist viewpoint I’m firmly of the view that we shared a common Celtic culture and politic even then……..
Observer,
‘The prob didnt stop in the north because they were repelled and found more interesting ports along the coast.” ‘
Where and when?
. Dublin, Limerick , Cork, Waterford , Wexford (Viksfort) , Wicklow (Vickingelow) , Dundalk, Arklow , Longford , and many others were all Viking established towns , ports , trading centres etc . The Vikings arrived circa 798 AD and we are told departed 1014 AD Good Friday (no agreement apparently) following defeat by Brian Boru and his army of Munster Irish clan plus assorted Connaughtmen and some other ‘Vikings’ from Cork and Waterford . The Vikings allied with the Leinstermen and the Danish King of Dublin were defeated . Any decent history book will give you the detail .
As for the Northern ‘role’ . They concocted some kind of excuse to slink back up North and avoid the battle . Apparently they had a row with Brian and Maolseachlain the Ulster King may have been hoping that Brian would have been defeated and given the Vikings such a bating that he could climb over both set of bones and reclaim the High Kingship of Ireland from the Boru upstart !
Alas not the first or the last time the Northmen got their strategy wrong !
After the battle Brian Boru allowed many of the Vikings to remain and continue trading and as long as they paid the annual tribute (protection money) they were allowed to do business
Dewi : i always got the impression, during study, that the true sense of “Welsh” to your average Saxon was not “foreigner” but closer to modern usage of the word “weirdo”.
Green Flag :
“After the battle Brian Boru allowed many of the Vikings to remain and continue trading and as long as they paid the annual tribute (protection money) they were allowed to do business
!
Which battle ? surely brian Boru was killed at the battle of Clontarf…. was he granting protection via a Ouija board ?
BTW. i don’t think the Irish had any choice, but to allow the vikings to remain, after all as metioned above they founded & held all the major settlements & were the military power behind B. Boru
“…but closer to modern usage of the word “weirdo”"
NP – I really did laugh out loud!!!
I prefer the sister programme, Off The Beaten Track.
Although I do declare an interest, as a walker, I just think Blueprint, ambitious and all as it is, is too ‘templated’ i.e. slavishly follows the Alan Titschmarsh formula, to truly distinguish itself.
It just seems too much like trying to ape what the main BBC network do and do much better. It’s like in cinema when you get a remake of a classic film; they are generally poorer and seem poorer because you are constantly reminded of how it is was done much better before.
And I find the main presenter slightly tiresome, as he flits between the dread presentation killers known as patronising and smug.
There are certainly times when he strays dangerously way too close to the latter for comfort.
But I forgive, as he is not a natural broadcaster in the same way as someone like Joe Lindsay, who would have been perfect for this.
The tone is wrong: if it had decided to strive less for dour authoritiveness, and aim more for I-never-knew-that-well-knock-me-down innocent punter on tour then the somewhat shouty tone of the programme would have been leavened. And I dare say ratings would have reflected that.
Smart-arses ‘explaining things’ can put the punters off, and re Brian Boru’s comment on audience figures, this seems to have been borne out here.
Some might argue that the controversial elements i.e. the creationist objections and the sequence on the lack of evidence for a Celt invasion would not have been served by this approach.
But really, the leavening of the tone would have allowed the rather mild ‘there is an unmistakeable Celtic influence rather than an actual invasion’ message pass without any real comment.
It is the driving home of this message as gospel, even while there are historians who disagree which invites trouble and resentment.
Furthermore, it would have seen the creationists off at the pass, if they had a few lines from a slightly irreverent presenter acknowledging their views and then moving on.
Amazingly, there hasn’t been a word on here about the radio programmes which are ace…
NP,
‘Which battle ? surely brian Boru was killed at the battle of Clontarf…. was he granting protection via a Ouija board ? ‘
My mistake -the successor high king and from what I recall the 1020 to the time of the Norman invasion was called ‘High Kings with opposition’ meaning the title was effectively just that and the real power remained with about a dozen or so provincial/regional kingdoms etc .
‘after all as metioned above they founded & held all the major settlements & were the military power behind B. Boru ‘
The Vikings who supported Brian would have been very much a minority in his alliance . He had in earlier years defeated the Vikings of Limerick , cork and Waterford . These towns continued to pay tribute and probably joined up with Brian knowing that if he won without their backing or had they fought with their ‘kinsmen’ they’d have had to flee the country after the battle.
Brian was crowned Imperator Scotorum at Armagh IIRC and probably represented Ireland’s best chance of establishing a longer term ‘dynasty’ which could have resisted the later Norman invasion.
Had King Harold of England not been betrayed by his brother he might well have won at Hastings and Britain and Ireland’s histories would have been very different . Again had Charlemagne been able to maintain his Holy Roman Empire and pass it on to his eldest son then France would not have been such an easy target for the Vikings and they would never have established their Normandy Duchy andd thus no William the Conqueror . But Charlemagne was a Frank and they did not go in for ‘primogeniture’ thus on his death the Kingdom of the Franks was divided East and West and that essentially was the ‘birth’ of France and Germany .
Had Paisley not been born
etc etc etc