DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-04 > 1207335791


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] R1b1b2e??
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 15:03:11 EDT



In a message dated 4/4/2008 8:37:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
writes:

The only well documented continental migration to Ireland was that of the
Belgic tribe Menapii, to the Wexford area - extreme South East of the
country - and the founding of their principal town Menapia, which later
became Wexford town. The Belgae of course may have been speaking a Celtic or
Germanic dialect - the latter according to Oppenheimer. It is interesting in
light of Oppenheimer's theory of the supposed fourth major branch of the
Germanic language - Old English, and its derivatives - that up till the mid
1800's the people of South East Wexford, spoke a dialect called Yola, a
Germano-English dialect, which may have been introduced by the Belgae,
Vikings or Normans, or a combination of them all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yola_language



Paul, the article you refer to actually says Yola (a branch of middle
English) was probably introduced by English followers of the Norman barons who
invaded Ireland in 1169. The Manapii are thought by some scholars to be the
ancient Monaigh of Ireland who appear in some early genealogical manuscripts
with a shadowy history of migrating north from Leinster (giving their tribe name
to Fermanagh, among other locations), There does seem to be some agreement
they are probably the same tribe as the Menapii of Gaul. I don't know how
well documented any of this is. It's mostly based on tribe names in Ptolemy's
map and Roman descriptions of the tribes of Gaul.

O'Rahilly mentions several possible late arrivals in Ireland, one of which
are the Lagin of Leinster, whom he connects to the Fir Domnainn of Irish
history and from thence to the Dumnonii of SW England (Devon and Cornwall) and
Armorica in Gaul. I don't think this is documented except in some very old
tribe and territorial names in early manuscripts.

Another tribe in Ptolemy's map were the Brigantes of South Wexford of whom
O'Rahilly states "it is hardly possible to disassociate [them] from the
Brigantes of Britain."

In the northeast of Ireland there seems to be some agreement that the
Robogdii of Ptolemy's map can be equated with the Dal Riata and the Voluntii
represent the Ulaidh (Dal Fiatach) of Ireland, but there is nothing to connect
either of these to tribes elsewhere in England or Gaul.

This would seem to be the same story often repeated by archeologists and
historians, of a warrior elite class settling in another territory and imposing
themselves on the local inhabitants. It's the same model often proposed for
the settlement of the Irish Dal Riata in Scotland where archeologists have
found little or no evidence of a mass invasion circa 500 A.D. to support the
origin legend of the Senchus Fer nAlban.

O'Rahilly saw no evidence of any tribe name in Ptolemy's map of Ireland
that could be equated with the Connachta or Ui Neill. At that date (2nd
century A.D) historians tell us they should have been settled in either the
midlands (O'Rahilly) or Connacht (Byrnes). Yet none of the tribal names in either
area bear any resemblance to Dal Cuinn or Siol Cuinn, the original tribe name
of what would later become the Connachta and Ui Neill. And these are the
tribes in Ireland where R1b1c7 is strongly concentrated. One tribe name
O'Rahilly omitted entirely from his discussion of Ptolemy's map are the Vennicnii of
northwest Ireland, where in legendary Irish history we find three sons of
Nial carving out territories for themselves circa 400 A.D. Some have tried to
connect the Vennicnii of NW Ireland with the Venicones of SE Scotland. Some
serious scholars have seen the root of the Venicone tribe name as Conn or
Cuinn (genitive form of Cu or hound) and Venn as some form related to the Irish
Feni, resulting in a tribe name something like the tribe or people of the
hounds. But there is no agreement that the Venicnii in Ireland can be equated
with the Venicones of Scotland. Most seem to dismiss the possibility out of
hand.

Of course we also don't know how complete the list of tribes in Ptolemy's
map are (possibly not very) or how accurately the tribe names were
transmitted in the original Greek of the manuscript. O'Rahilly believes the
information in the map originally came from Pythias of Massalia in 325 B.C., the only
known Greek geographer known to have visited the Pretanic Isles prior to
Ptolemy's time. That date would seem too early for the sons of Nial in NW
Ireland. Unless Irish historians are wrong about where the Dal Cuinn originated in
Ireland.

An easily accessible version of Ptolemy's map can be found on the
Ireland's History in Maps site:

_http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire150.htm_
(http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire150.htm)

There are a few mistakes in this rendition though. Concani shown in the SE
should be Gangani; and the name Domnainn is not a tribe name but a city name.

I have to wonder why of all the names in Ptolemy's map, the one tribe name
O'Rahilly declined to discuss or even mention were the Vennicnii of NW
Ireland. It has occurred to me that perhaps the version of the map he consulted did
not contain this tribe name. But every source I've seen on the internet
does mention the name. It's an odd omission (to my eyes anyway) since the name
Vennicni would seem to be Q-Celtic and the whole thrust of O'Rahilly's
theories about the late arriving goidels is based on the fact that they were
Q-Celtic rather than Brythonic.


John






**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)

This thread: