Monday, April 14, 2008
“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.
Pete Baker @ 07:07 PM
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?
Posted by on Apr 15, 2008 @ 09:59 PMGréagóir 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 ?
Posted by on Apr 15, 2008 @ 11:47 PMAbucs,
I have read heard about this. 70% of people in England and I think about 90% of people in Scotland and Ireland.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 12:00 AMThanks manichaeism.
Gordan Brown might have something new to work with ? :o)
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 01:19 AMPancho’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Linguistic, cultural, religious and historical references don’t mean a damn thing when compared to a drawing on a wall in Belfast.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.Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 07:07 AMRath 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!
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 09:46 AMThe 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.Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 11:26 AMDewi, edifar!
Just noticed i missed Cymru from the list above.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 11:30 AMRG,
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.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 11:40 AMAye, 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.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 12:09 PM“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!
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 12:44 PM“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!
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 06:39 PMAbove should read “..lios, which is Irish for rath”.
Oh dear. Back to school.
Not yours, hopefully.Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 06:41 PMlios , 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!”
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 07:40 PMlonglake,
“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.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 08:18 PMYou dont think the Celtic department at queens might have a dog in this race?!
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 08:35 PMHope not!
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 08:44 PMLios 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”
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 08:46 PM“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........Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 08:57 PMObserver,
‘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 :)
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 09:01 PMDewi : 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”. ;-)
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 09:05 PMGreen 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
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 09:16 PM“...but closer to modern usage of the word “weirdo"”
NP - I really did laugh out loud!!!
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 09:36 PMI 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…
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 10:26 PMNP,
‘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
Posted by on Apr 16, 2008 @ 11:19 PM
