Talk:Prehistoric Ireland

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human Genetic History (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

My current read (Richard Bradley The prehistory of Britain and Ireland) agrees that Metallurgy & Beaker pottery appeared simultaneously, however it is subtley different from the current wording Metallurgy arrived in Ireland with new people, generally known as the Bell Beaker People. Intentionally or not this implies an element of displacement. Bradley notes other elements (buildings/Ceremonial use of pottery etc) remain unchanged, implying the import of ideas/fashion and (possibly) some immigration but not a transplant of culture. I intend develop this view in the current article but checking if this needs to be discussed first. --Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I forgot I had created this page, I thought I had deleted it, a rather Nixonian moment when someone pops on your talk page to ask you discuss what appears to be a very intricate topic.

Ireland, by far, has the highest compliment of Ancestral European Haplotypes relative to any other people in Europe, for the AH8.1 haplotype it peaks in western Ireland which agrees with the following map of Bell beaker culture, that there was some displacement. However the frequencies of these Ancestral haplotypes are high all over Ireland, it is simply nodal (global nodes) in Western Ireland for at least 3 of the Ancestral haplotypes.

What does this indicate, during the late Pleistocene people spread from refugia in SW France and NW spain, they colonized many areas of Europe by the Holocene but not Ireland, it was not until sea levels rose that Ireland was settled. Most of Northern and Western England and Parts of NW France and Scandinavia were high in these 'Ancestral Haplotypes', other types migrated in as part of the Neolithic migration (LBK, La Hoguette, Impressed Cardial Ware) and migrants continued to arrived. The level of migration is so great, that although AH8.1 is one of the highest frequency haplotypes in the Paris Basin, it is almost 5 fold lower than in Western Ireland. This is one of the steepest genetic gradients in Europe. This migration penetrated Southern and Eastern Briton and was successful where-ever middle eastern crops could be raised. Its success faltered further north and significant pre-Neolithic ancestral contributions remained, particularly in Western England (Cornwall, Wales, NW England) and Scotland. It appears that settlement from Ireland came from NW England and Scotland and if the culture is correct in multiple waves.

The HLA indicates that peoples did settle Ireland after the initial settlement and these did have an impact, there is even evidence of recent gene contributions of a low level from the South, N. Iberia and even Africa. However in terms of replacement, I don't think their is evidence of genetic displacement, instead the model supports significant genetic contribution with admixture creating gradients from NE to NW and from SE to NW across Ireland.PB666 ^yap 21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged your article as part of the Human Genetic History. A little tidbit that you probably can't use on you page, it appears that AH8.1 evolved to high level in Western Europeans as a consequence of shellfish consumption, probably related to diseases carried by shellfish that can cause gastrointestinal problems in humans. The page is looking up, I'm glad I forgot to delete it, lol, but it needs more inline references. The pictures are very nice. PB666 ^yap 22:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except pre Beaker Ireland was mostly I2 haplotype as was Britain but the arrival of R1b L21 Rhenish Beakers saw a turnover of around 90% in a few hundred years in Britain and likewise would be the same in Ireland. One need only look at the percentage of Irish Y genes today to see the neolithics disappeared. Look at the Ballynahatty genes in Lara Cassidy's paper from 2015, they are similar to neolithic genes from Spain indicating one derived from the other or both descend from the same ancestors. If you look at Ireland today autosomal genes don't match up closely with Spanish but with other north Europeans derived from steppe herders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland#RFC: Irish history series. --RA (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bell beakers spread from the west into Eurpope, Indo-Europeans (not yet Celts) from the East; thus, both have nothing to do with each other. Moreover, Celts are supposed to have develloped in an area northwest of the Alps, and later - in the first millennium BC - spread over half of Europe. HJJHolm (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The maritime beakers arrived to Ross Lake but other Rhenish derived beakers with a strong steppe (IndoEuropean) ancestry arrived from Britain and bore hallmarks of Common Irish haplogroup L21, blue eyes and other traits. See Cassidy et al 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two cold-peaks or maximums/maxima in the Weichsel/Devensian Last Glacial Period, the first around -72-60 ka, the second around -28 ka CC (cf. any Greenland icecore data). Already -12.7 ka CC a first warm period initiated the end of the glaciation, only interrupted by the Latest Dryas, which ended - and with it the glaciation - ca. -9660 CC. HJJHolm (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were actually three peaks and not two: Early Weichselian (100–80 ka), the Middle Weichselian (60–50 ka) and the Late Weichselian (25–15 ka), sometimes called the Mindel, Riss and Würm maximums. Ireland was completely covered in a thick glacial ice sheet, 27 thousand years ago during the Würm maxima, according to this 2011 Physorg article but not according to this 2004 scientific paper. This site claims it was covered during the Riss maxima but not during the later Würm peak. On balance, considering the different scientific views out there and the number of Ice Ages, this article appears to reach a reasonable compromise in defining the late glacial maximum of the Würm glaciation, when modern humans were moving into Northern Europe for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.102.53 (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negated in the account but see [1] Notafly (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, this section mentions the Late Glacial Maximum (ca. 13,000–10,000 years ago) then it goes on to mention a seemingly earlier era "During the period between 17,500 and 12,000 years ago, a warming trend and a cool period allowed the rehabitation of northern areas of Europe" this seems confusing, to mention the previous era second. Can someone with knowledge of this era sort out the order and clarify the timeline? Hyacinth45 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author probably meant the Bølling-Allerød warm trend which was followed by the cold Younger Dryas. AlwynJPie (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why nobody correctly describes the bronze "dagger scepters", in this chapter named "halberds", which latter are quite another thing, namely a real weapon used in the medieval era, while the dagger scepters of the bronze age in Western Europe (in particular in Ireland) appear rather to have been used as insignia of power. Professional archaeologists should be able to distinguish these! Could any expert please enlighten us? HJJHolm (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains the following line:

There is some disagreement about when the Celts (and thus Indo-Europeans) first arrived in Ireland. It is thought by some scholars to be associated with the Beaker People of the Bronze Age, but the more mainstream view is that the Celts arrived much later at the beginning of the Iron Age.

It's definitely true that the Celts were Indo-Europeans. And some people think that the Bell Beaker people were Celts. But even if they weren't, that doesn't mean that the Celts were the first Indo-European peoples in Ireland. Even if the Bell Beaker culture wasn't connected to the Celtic people, we still have reason to think that whoever the people of the Bell Beaker culture were, they were an Indo-European linguistic group, and so shared certain genetic and cultural features with other Indo-European peoples.50.191.21.222 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing. Johundhar (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prehistoric Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050920180128/http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/geog/teaching/quatern/q8b.htm to http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/geog/teaching/quatern/q8b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of paragraph 6 of the Paleolithic section says that "a site dated to 11,000 BC was discovered that indicated people were in the area eating a marine diet including shellfish.". No reference source is provided for this. The reference ssource for the fourth sentence in this paragraph says that that the earliest evidence of human occupation in Ireland dates back to 10,500BC. If a reference source cannot be provided for the first claim, it should be removed. If there is a reference source for this, then the discrepancy in current publications needs to be pointed out, or othere references sources found. Epzcaw (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnbod removed my request for a citation to support the claim that there was evidence that people were living in Ireland in 11000 BC (13000) years ago, saying "it is referenced. 500 years is probably within the margin of error of a C14 dating, but the mentions should be harmonized"

I do not agree that this statement is referenced.

References (1) and (7), published in 2016, discuss a new discovery which shows evidence of human habitation in Co. Clare 12,500 years ago. They also both say that this has pushed back the date of the earliest human habitation by 2500 years. (1) says

"Since the 1970s, the oldest evidence of human occupation on the island of Ireland has been at Mount Sandel in Co. Derry. This site has been dated at 8,000 BC, which is in the Mesolithic period, indicating that humans had occupied the island for some 10,000 years". This is in direct contradiction to the claim about human habitation on the East Coast dating 13000 years ago.

(1) was published on the "Archaeology.ie" website, and it is not likely to have allowed such an error to be published.

The only other explanation would be that the East Coast discovery was made after 2016. References (2) to (6) are all older than this, so none of these can cover this. If this is the case, the information needs to be referenced.

Could we have another opinion here please. I am trying to learn about the topic, and this has juust left me confused. Epzcaw (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is clearer now - it was all very muddled. Of course, "the eastern side of the Irish Sea" is Britain, not Ireland. Once that is realized I think the problem disappears. I assume the next reference covers this, although I haven't seen it. The 2016 bear bone dating is the key evidence that's actually from Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is clear now. Epzcaw (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mesolithic section now needs amending, as it says that "the earliest evidence of human occupation after the retreat of the ice has been dated to around 8000 BC.". I don't want to make changes as I am a beginner. Epzcaw (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"When primary written records of Celtic first appear in about the fifth century, Gaelic or Goidelic, in the form of Primitive Irish, is found in Ireland, while Brittonic, in the form of Common Brittonic, is found in Britain."

There's no mention of Ogham inscriptions that show Q Celtic in Ireland (and in Britain from Irish immigrants/invaders) that in the 4th century was already antiquated for that time period indicating the language was probably centuries older? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody, thought I would start this new Section in the Talk before making a few updates with the "Glaciation and the Palaeolithic" Section in the Wiki Page. There has been quite a few new scientific advances in particular relation to the alleged land bridge between Britain and Ireland; not wanting to cause offense to any other Wiki Editors I'll initially post suggested Text alterations here first, please feel free to do the same.Bibby (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor who wrote that section is no longer with us, but I know the whole question is rather uncertain. The section currently uses good quality sources from 2008, so excuse me if I'm a bit suspicious about "quite a few new scientific advances". The article doesn't say there was a land bridge. Perhaps you could post the sources you intend to use here first. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was thinking as well, I'll put together what I can find, in Ireland there is a surprising number of people that are actually adamant of the existence of a Land Bridge to Britain up to 5000BC! But I think we can both agree that, that map needs to be fixed! Having a map with writing underneath, with the phrases, "should be disregarded" and "is doubtful", is to put it mildly, not good! Bibby (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! So, I've re-worked the opening couple of paragraphs of this section, replaced some of the Sources with better ones (also more easily viewable) and added a newer up to date Source (presenting marine geological evidence from core samples around the Irish coast, which adds a lot to the computer analysis Source). BUT the thing I REALLY want to do is delete that terrible map, it's just so bad on so many levels, not just visually but also factually (it even acknowledges that itself!), not to mention the fact that it's being contradicted by the article connected with it! So, if there's no objections I'll go ahead and delete it in a few days? Bibby (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I went ahead and removed the poor map, I will put up a better map shortly showing the ice sheet across Ireland, which is way better than a self declared incorrect map.Bibby (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the article Irish Dark Age into this article because it is redundant to content covered in this article and fits well here. This was undone by Johnbod, who left the following puzzling messages on my talk page, reproduced here under a level three heading. Sandstein 09:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now this! Wtf???? Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, if you are unsure of the difference between prehistoric and the dark ages (!?!), you should probably stay away from related areas. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod and @Ceoil: What are your objections, exactly? If you look at the content I merged, you will see that:

• the period called the ‎Irish Dark Age (100 BC – AD 300) is in fact part of the period covered in Prehistoric Ireland (up to AD 400), and
• the content that I merged was already present, in substance, in the tenth paragraph of the section Prehistoric Ireland#Iron Age (500 BC – AD 400).

Also, happy holidays! Sandstein 09:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Asarlaí, who thanked me for the merger; maybe they can comment on these concerns also. Sandstein 09:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGE: "Any editor can perform a merger. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below." If you thyought that would be uncontroversia;, you were clearly wrong. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod, I know that, but again, why do you object to the merger? Why do you think it is bad? Sandstein 11:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since Johnbod and Ceoil (as well as Asarlaí whom I also pinged) have not responded to my explanation (reproduced above) as to why the merger does make sense, and have not explained their objections, I assume Johnbod and Ceoil have dropped their objections, and will be reinstating the merger. Sandstein 09:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wished me "happy holidays" above, but appear to have mislaid the meaning of that word! Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, if there's recent activity on the Wiki page maybe a quick mention on the Talk Page helps, but after reading the explanations given here and reading a bit more on the background of this topic, I don't think there is anything to be concerned about this edit. In fact I think the edits made (and being made) by Sandstein are good improvements. It should maybe be remembered that in Ireland, due to the lack of Latin (no Roman Empire) their pre-history doesn't end until around 400AD when the Christian missionaries arrived with Latin. Bibby (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue with the merger. Irish Dark Age is a very short article, which probably couldn't be expanded much, and is already mentioned in this article. It refers to the period 100 BC to 300 AD, which falls within Ireland's pre-historic period. Maybe some editors mistook the term "Irish Dark Age" for the later "Dark Ages". ~Asarlaí 14:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous! Both Ceoil & I have written extensively on Early Medieval subjects, both Irish and other - more than you or Sandstein can say. Perhaps some editors take time off Wikipedia over Christmas (and some others shouldn't use that time to barrel things through). I will consider whether to take this further after the holidays. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do sincerely apologize if I have misunderstood something, but is this discussion not about Pre-history of Ireland, not Early Medieval? Doesn't the Irish (so called) Dark Age end at the time when Latin and therefore recorded history began, ending the Pre-History time period? Surely this isn't a big deal either way, is it?Bibby (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bibby, well yes it is a big deal, if we are to be accurate with fundamental facts. The dark ages aka the Early Middle Ages began in the early 5th c, that is, as you say, coinciding with recorded history, which in Ireland's case is c 400 AD. Maybe the problem here is that these changes are always gradual and never clean cut, or defined by a pivotal moments dividing one from one epoch from the next, and there is so, quite understandable confusion on which boundaries to use for transitional periods. Ceoil (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibby, yes you have misunderstood something, misled by Sandstein and Asarlaí, who keep floating the Early Medieval red herring. When the Protohistory of Ireland and then "proper" recorded history actually begin is a rather fuzzy issue, as there is so little information from the whole period. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil and @Johnbod, I'm afraid the record shows that any confusion was introduced by Ceoil, with his initial comment (under 'Bad Merger') accusing others of confusing time periods, when the confusion was entirely his. This was compounded by claims from both of you that your history as writers on medieval topics is relevant to this merger of an article on pre-medieval Ireland. I know that Johnbod has an award for 'diplomacy', but on the strength of this discussion it is hard to see why, as the two of you are coming across as entirely unreasonable and curmudgeonly. The initial mistake was understandable, though not the misplaced sarcasm with which it was expressed. But if/when you come back to this after the holiday, it might be less embarrassing to admit it, or pass over it, rather than trying to cover by blustering, pulling rank and blaming others. There may be good reasons for undoing the merger, but confusion of time periods is not one of them. GarethAd (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

????? Why continue introducing this red herring then? I'll deal with you other comments, which seem both "entirely unreasonable and curmudgeonly" to me, in January. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil and @Johnbod, I still don't understand what exactly in your view is wrong about this merger. Johnbod, if you are an expert on the topic as you say, maybe you could explain in detail rather than just restating your objection? Ceoil, are you sure that you are not confusing this Ireland-specific period (100 BC – AD 300) with the Dark Ages, which are another time period altogether in another place, namely the 5th to 10th century AD in Western Continental Europe? Sandstein 07:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After the holidays, as I said. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats dair enough GarethAd. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "conquered" was correct and there was no need to "correct" it. And there was no need to call me an idiot. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word invaded was there for a long time and is therefore the consensus status quo. Per WP:BRD if a change is made, and it's reverted, it's taken to talk to obtain consensus for the change and not reverted back in again. Onto the actual topic, since the sentence is talking about records didn't begin in most of Europe until Romans invaded countries, then mentioning them not invading Ireland as a reason for it not having recording history is the correct word. Conquered and invaded are not the same thing. The sentence isn't discussing recorded history starting with Roman's conquering, but with invading. I do agree there was no reason for the other editor to call you an idiot, although considering you called a set of edits ignorant just shortly prior there's a bit of a pot calling the kettle black here. But lets just drop that and move along. Canterbury Tail talk 19:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for name calling, it is for the schoolyard...

The word "invaded" seems more accurate, a region can be invaded, but not conquered, such as Scotland or Germany, the invasion will result in some historical records and therefore written information on the inhabitants (which hopefully survives to modern time), we have no such records therefore we can reasonably assume that no invasion occurred (there is no debate as to whether Ireland was conquered!). There was no reason for the Romans to invade, the Irish posed no threat (like the Germans/Scots or Picts), there were no valuable resources, ie: mines, like in Spain, there were no advanced cities to extract taxes from, and the bleeding of resources and legions to 'incompletely' conquer Great Britain was a lesson to the Romans to not to try and conquer another similar region. Bibby (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - I'm aware "never conquered by the Romans "is a phrase with certain resonance in Irish Nationalist rhetoric, going back a long way, but it rather implies, or at least leaves open, that there were unsuccessful attempts by the Romans, which there weren't. Apart from the good reasons Bibby gives, the Irish were perhaps lucky that no mid-to-late Roman emperor badly needed a triumph in a hurry. The dificulties they had with the Scottish frontier may also have been a deterrent. I was only trying to match the very robust tone all too evident on User talk:Nicknack009, but am happy to apologise. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]