Western

Caldrail did I not pretty much say that. You may have misunderstood what I said but I believe that the population of Britain and Ireland is largely decended from Paleolithic hunter gathers who arrived here towards the end of the last Ice Age, with some later mixing with Neolithic farmers or people who utilised their practices. After this the first large scale influx of people was the so-called Celts in the first millenium BC. The level of population movement associated with the Celts and their influnce on the British Isles is a topic of continual debate, as are the Celts themselves, but iron seems to have appeared in the British Isles at the same time as they did.

Further discussion about Tuathal Teachtmhar. Roman and Romano-British artefacts have been primarily found in Leinster, in places such as Drumanagh, and burials on the nearby island of Lambay, both close to where Tuathal is supposed to have landed, and at other sites associated with Tuathal such as Tara and Clogher. It is possible that the Romans may have given support to Tuathal, or someone like him, to regain his throne in the interests of having a friendly neighbour who could restrain Irish raiding. It is also noted that this may have been the origin of the presence of the Brigantes in Ireland as noted in Ptolemy's 2nd century Geography. The Brigantes were a rebellious British tribe only recently conquered in Agricola's time. The dispossessed nobility may have been ready recruits for Tuathal's invasion force, or the Romans may have found it a convenient way of getting rid of troublesome subjects. Other tribal names associated with south-east Ireland, including the Domnainn, related to the British Dumnonii, and the Menapii, also known from Gaul, may also date from such an invasion.

Regarding the gauls, the points about trading and the insidious (and possibly intentional?) effects of luxury goods are interesting. But I think there's another side to it. Cultures that raid on a traditional basis but don't conquer territory (native american and maori for instance) tend to last, whereas those that raid and do conquer have an expansion period then come off the boil. Like the vikings for instance. Thats really what I was getting at. I think I would class the Vikings in a different league to the Gauls. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and the Faroe Islands are still here today, and Norse culture, language and trade had a huge influence on the development of Finland, Russia (the Rus), France (the Normans) and England (the Danes and Normans), and they founded most of the towns in Ireland.

I think I would have to with Atilla as he is the one who is remembered. If it wasn't for the distraction of the threat from Huns which weakened and divided the Romans, would the Vandals have over run the Romans in North Africa and sacked Rome? In fact in Iberia the Vandals had suffered greatly from attacks from the more poweful Visigoths, and Geiseric had decided to leave Spain to the Visigoths and had started building a Vandal fleet even before he became King. After Gaiseric died, the status of the Vandal declined and eventual collapsed just like the Huns after Atilla died.

The Danelaw (Danelagh) was the name given in the 9th and 10th centuries to parts of England were the laws of the Danes held sway over those of the Anglo-Saxons. These laws were enforced in the Kingdoms of Northumbria, East Anglia, and in the lands of the Five Boroughs of Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Stamford and Lincoln. Ironically the Danelaw and especially York became a target for Viking raiders, while ongoing war with Anglo-Saxon Wessex and Mercia sapped the strength of the Danelaw. The Danelaw was gradually eroded by Anglo-Saxon raids and Edward the Elder incorporated the Danelaw into his newfound Kingdom of England after the northern kings submitting to Edward in return for protection. However the Danes never gave up their ambitions to control England and from 1016 to 1035 the whole of England was ruled by King Canute. In 1066 two rival Viking factions invaded England, one under Harald Hardrada took York but was defeated at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, while the other William of Normandy (The Conqueror) and the Normans would defeat the Anglo-Saxon armies at the Battle of Hastings and change the history of Britain and the world. The influence of Scandinavian settlement can still be seen in the North of England and the East Midlands, were place names endings such as-by, thorpe, and toft are commonest in the area covered by the Danelaw in the north and east of England north of Watling Street. Also in this area, church becomes kirk and ditch becomes dike. Old Norse and Old English were still mutually comprehensible and the mixed language of the Danelaw caused the incorporation of many Norse words into the English language, including the word law itself, as well as the third person plural pronouns they, them and their. Many Old Norse words still survive today in the dialects of Northeastern England.

I always thought it was built to prevent raids by the tribes from Scotland to the north, to improve economic stability, to improvide peaceful conditions in the south, and to mark the frontier of the Empire. It's use as a military fortification must have been its primary function as it was the centre piece of the most heavily fortified border in the Roman Empire, although the gates could have easily served as customs posts to allow trade taxation. The route of its construction largely paralleled the nearby Stanegate road from Luguvalium (Carlisle) to Coria (Corbridge), which was already defended by a system of forts such as Vindolanda, and in fact Hadrian's Wall was the second of three such walls built across Northern Britain along with the Gask Ridge and the Antonine Wall.

I don't think anybody actually knows who the exiled Irishman was. If it was Tuathal Teachtmhar, then he was a 'legendary High King', maybe a High King or maybe just a chieftain. I believe Agricola actualy said Ireland could be conquered with a single Legion and a few auxiliaries. But I doubt he ever had the opportunity as the traditional date of Tuathal Teachtmhar return to Ireland is 76-80AD. When Agricola said he "crossed in the first ship" and defeated peoples unknown to the Romans it was in 82. It is generally thought that Agricola meant he crossed the Clyde or Forth rivers in Scotland when Tacitus wrote it, while from 84 Agricola was at war with the Caledonians, and was recalled from Britain all together in 85 by Domitian.

In all likely hood it is probable that the Romans did visit Ireland to establish trade links, and explore the possiblity of establishing political client among the local tribal powers with a eye to an eventual occupation of the island. However I think it is highly unlikely that any major expedition was ever launched and the only archaeological evidence that the Romans were ever in Ireland is from Drumnagh, which was almost certainly a trading post. It is possible that the south-eastern part of Ireland (Leinster) was influenced or may have been within the political orbit of Britain at this time. According to Richard Warner, in Leinster a fair number of Roman objects and even some Roman style burials have been found, while native Celtic La Tene material is rarer but very common everywhere else in Ireland. Local tribal names from the 1st century AD and names recorded by Ptolemy in the early 2nd century are identical to the names of tribes in Gaul and Britain, and there was a tradition of a British origin and the use of Roman and British words in their literature and place-names. There is a legend which tells of an Irish chieftan, Tuathal, who spent time in Britain and returned with an army to seize power in the Irish Midlands. Tacitus stated that Agricola, while pondering the invasion of Ireland, had with him an Irish chieftain for use in just such an exercise. At about the same time, Juvenal specifically tells us, Roman `arms had been taken beyond the shores of Ireland'. The myth of Tuathal connects him to a number of Irish places, some of which have been excavated and have produced Roman material of the late 1st or early 2nd centuries AD. There may have been a grain of truth with the story of Tuathal, who may have existed and returned to Ireland with the Roman aid, arms, money and some mercenaries from Britain. There also may have been others over the centuries. The sites that produce early Roman objects also produce later Roman material. Tara the midland ritual complex, and Clogher a northern hillfort, have produced early and late Roman material, but no native objects. Both became capitals of the elites whose ancient origin-tales derived them. Cashel, the southern capital of just such a group, has not only produced a stray late Roman brooch, but was named from the Latin castellum. However for the Romans themselves, Ireland like Scotland may have been to far from home, to poor and to much trouble for the Romans to bother occupying. They built Hadrains Wall in northern England to keep Scotland out of sight, for Ireland they had the Irish Sea.

No I'm aware that there is a line in the south-west were Celtic DNA is more frequent, which would be obvious given its own strong Celtic history, being one of last parts of England to historically come under Anglo-Saxon influence, it's closeness to Wales, and it's relative remotness from the rest of England. Some studies have given high Celtic DNA for areas in the south of England which you would think are likely to be stongly Anglo-Saxon. York may have been far enough away from the initial focus of Anglo-Saxon invasion/migration to allow for a stronger Celtic survival, but it was also controlled by the Danes who would have near indentical DNA to the Anglo-Saxons, so why is it so strongly Celtic? Maybe my initial argument is true for the fact that York was a major political/economic centre attracted a lot of poorer caste people with Celtic DNA in pre-Industrial revolution times. Norfolk is also a large town and in an area which would suggest that Anglo-Saxon DNA would be dominant. Who knows, DNA seems to be far from straight forward.

I know that plenty of Irish, Scottish and Welsh also emigrated as well, I'm actually Irish myself, but I was refering to English migration only. I believe the results of certain DNA testing which showed a strong Celtic DNA presence among the modern English occured in southern England, particularly in counties of the South-East. Recent migration of people with more Celtic DNA to an area which logically would be strongly Anglo-Saxon, and migration from that area by people with more Anglo-Saxon DNA might explain this oddity. In regards to the emergance of English as the language of post-Roman England, and alternative testing that shows significant differences between the DNA of the modern English and Welsh, or a preponderance of Anglo-Saxon DNA in areas of modern England. There is a theory that the Anglo-Saxons may have practised an ancient form of apartheid over the local British. For many generations the new English frowned upon, forbid, or did not legaly recognise intermarrying with the locals who had been reduced to the status of serf or peasant in the areas they controlled. As the English now controlled the best land and food producing areas and had all the power, they where able to outbreed the locals over a number of generations in the parts of Britain they occupied, which led to English quickly becoming the spoken language of England and a dominance of Anglo-Saxon DNA in certain parts of England.

I read somewhere that recent British migration patterns may be a reason why there is so much contradiction in DNA studies of Anglo-Saxon DNA in comparison with so called "Native" Celtic Britons. From the 17th to the early 20th century English migration to North America, Australia etc was heavily from parts of England where the Anglo-Saxon element in the English population was likely to be strongest, ie the rich southern counties and midlands. As these people left for the new colonies the industrial revolution also brought an influx of poorer people from rural northern and western England to the new industrial cities and towns in search jobs. It's possible that the new influx of people to London, and other big towns brought more Celtic DNA with them as those with more Anglo-Saxon DNA left. Ironically many people with English ancestors who live in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc may have more Anglo-Saxon DNA than those living in England which has become more Celtic.