Talk:Túathal Techtmar

Untitled

Its an idea. Any comments? --Dumbo1 23:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two Theories into One?

Perhaps O'Rahilly's theory of Tuathal as the 1st or 2nd century BC leader of the invading Goidels and the rival theory of Tuathal as a 1st century AD invader could be reconciled if the Goidelic invasion took place in the 1st century AD!

I have heard some people claim that Ptolemy's description of Ireland is singularly devoid of Goidelic placenames and tribal names not because he was relying on out-of-date information (as O'Rahilly believed), but simply because the Goidelic invasion had taken place too recently to have an impact yet on the demographic and toponymic character of the island. (If the invading Goidels were few in number, it would have taken them several generations at least to "make their mark".)

If the Goidels invaded in the 1st century AD, this could explain both Ptolemy's lack of Goidelic names and the traditional dates for Tuathal's reign.

Is there any firm evidence that fixes the Goidelic invasion to one particular century? (Come to think of it, don't some people even question the very notion of a Goidelic invasion?)

O'Rahilly's theory that Mug Nuadat was the leader of the Southern Goidels (the Eoganachta) could also be accommodated. If Mug's date of about 123 AD is accepted as legitimate, would that mean that the southern Goidels invaded about 50 years after the Northern Goidels (Connachta)?

Eroica 14:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... maybe not. I have just taken another look at O'Rahilly's Early Irish History and Mythology and I realize there is a serious flaw in the theory I propose above. O'Rahilly doesn't just show that Ptolemy's account of Ireland shows no trace whatsoever of the Goidelic invasion: he also shows that Ptolemy's account is equally devoid of any references to the Lagin and their allies, who came to Ireland before the Goidels! As the Laginian conquests were mainly in the southeast of the country, one would expect that they would have had a major impact on that part of Ireland by the time of Ptolemy - yet Ptolemy's account lists only pre-Laginian Bolgic tribes in what is now Leinster.

It seems that I was wrong to doubt O'Rahilly. The Goidelic invasion may have been much later than he thought, so it may be still possible to retain the traditional dates for Tuathal Teachtmhar and Mug Nuadat, but either way Prolemy's account must be based on sources that were already a few centuries out of date by 140 CE.

O'Rahilly's conviction that the Goidelic invasion took place no later than 50 BC is based on the fact that by 50 BC Caesar's conquest of Gaul was complete. Any major migration of Gauls or Goidels from Gaul to Ireland after that date would surrely have been noted by Roman historians (if not prevented by the authorities). As no such migrations are mentioned, O'Rahilly concludes that the Goidelic invasion must have already taken place.

But two criticisms can be levelled at this reasoning:

• Firstly, the Goidelic invasion need not have been a major migration, involving entire fleets of ships and thousands of invaders. It could have been a very small scale operation that passed unnoticed or unremarked by Roman historians. In 1169 the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland involved only small numbers of invaders; but thanks to their advanced weaponry, their superior military and political skills, and the lack of unity among the natives, the Normans were able to gain permanent control of large parts of the country. Archaeologists today even question the very notion of a Goidelic invasion due to the lack of tangible archaeological evidence for it on the ground.

• Secondly, O'Rahilly believed that the Goidels invaded Ireland from Aquitania in the southwest of Gaul (around the Bordeaux-Biarritz region of modern France). The traditional view – that they came from Spain – he believed to be a myth derived from Isidore of Seville, who wrote in his Etymologiae (Book XIV, Chapter 6, Paragraph 6 - External PDF): "6. Scotia, the same as Hibernia, an island very near Britain, narrower in the extent of its lands but more fertile; this reaches from Africa towards Boreas [the North]; Iberia and the Cantabrian ocean are opposite to the first part of it. Whence, too, it is called Hibernia." (My italics.) Rudolf Thurneyson believed that this passage was the seed from the Book of Invasions originated. O'Rahilly mentions "several pieces of evidence ... [which] unite in suggesting that the Goidels were connected with the south-east of Gaul", so he rejects the "learned view" of an invasion from Spain as fictitious. I don't know what those "pieces of evidence" are, so I can't judge. But since it became known in 1970 that the Celtiberian language was a Q-Celtic speech like the speech of the Goidels, the view that the Goidelic invasion (or one of them, at any rate) might have come from Spain could be revived. The Roman conquest of Spain (Hispania) was not completed until 19 BC.

DNA shows Scots and Irish should look to Spain for their ancestry (Irrelevant? Is this referring to pre-Celtic links?)

Eroica 08:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Take Linguistic Care

I have corrected the word "fictional" to "legendary" in re the discussion of Milesius of Galicia. A fiction (thus, something fictional) is something which is invented and is known to be invented. We do not know that Milesius was fictional. We do know that was legendary - which simply means there are lots of legends about him. There are legends about Erik the Red, whom we know to have actually existed; and there are legends about Herne the Hunter, whom we are reasonably certain did not exist; and in between the two extremes, there are legends about Yeshua Bar-Yosef/Jesus Christ, whom at least 40% of the world's people (Christians and Muslims) believe existed, and perhaps as many people believe he's fictional - but there can be no denying that he is legendary. So it is, too, with Milesius. He might have never existed, in which case he was a purely fictional invention; or he might have been a real person whose exploits were greated elaborated upon over time so that he became incredible (that is, the stories got so wild, they were no longer credible - believable - but became incredible, unbelievable). We don't know whether he is a real person or a fictional one; but we do know he is legendary; and he is also arguably mythical, though that's a bit of a stretch.

Please be careful when editing Wikipedia, to use words for what they mean - not for what they sound like.
98.210.219.30 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And equally, take care when reading. The idea that Míl was fictitious is O'Rahilly's argument and presented and sourced as such. I have reverted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)