The Scots did not come from Ireland
David Steele:
THE belief that the Scots are descendants of Irish settlers who crossed from Antrim in the sixth century is being dismissed as a myth by an eminent archaeologist.
In a detailed research paper published by Glasgow University yesterday, Ewan Campbell argues the claimed migrations of the Irish into Argyll can be attributed to "a set of elite origin myths, finding no support in archaeological evidence".
For many years Dr Campbell has been concerned that the received truth that Scots kings were descended from Irish invaders was not the truth at all.
He has concluded any migration between the west coast of Scotland and north east Ireland was in the opposite direction to that previously thought.
The doubts were planted in his mind when he took part in a excavation at the royal fort at Dunadd in Argyll in the 1970s. The dig uncovered strong evidence that this was the inauguration site of the early Scottish kings but gave little indication of any Irish influence.
At this time, the kingdom of the Scots - Dalriada, consisting of Argyll and some of the west coast islands - was a centre of civilisation and trade.
Dr Campbell said: "Looking at the site made us wonder, how did it start? It made us look at the original legends. If they were true you would expect to see Irish types of settlements and artefacts. When we looked for evidence of the Irish origin, there was none.
Dr Campbell said of the accepted belief: "This apparently incorrect account was done by medieval spin doctors for political reasons - to further the claims to the Scottish throne of descendants of Kenneth MacAlpine. It was an early example of an Orwellian rewrite of history."
More on the so-called Irish invasion of Scotland:
The foundation myths of Scotland state that the Scottish Gaels originated from the Dal Riata tribe in Antrim, north-east Ireland. Around AD 500, or so the story goes, Fergus Mor mac Eirc supposedly established a new Dal Riata in Argyll because of dynastic competition at home (Foster, 1996: 13). According to this view, they displaced a previous British or Pictish community from Argyll - a process which eventually ended with the takeover of the entire Pictish kingdom in the 9th century to create the united kingdom of Alba that became Scotland.
Leslie Alcock (1970) examined the archaeological evidence in detail and concluded that there was very little to support the idea that there was a 4th/5th century invasion from Ireland. Similarly, Foster finds no archaeological evidence for this migration. However, she concludes that distribution of artefacts and similarities in monument construction show close links between Antrim and Kintyre from the Neolithic onwards. The evidence also supports an extensive Gaelic-speaking presence during this period along Britain's western coast, including Cornwall, Devon, Dyfed, Anglesey and south-west Scotland.
Very litle archaeology had taken place in Argyll and Antrim prior to Alcock's review, but this was no longer the case by the end of the 20th century. Nevertheless, Campbell (2001) could summarise the current state of knowledge in the following words:
'There is ... no evidence of a change in the normal settlement type at any point in the 1st millennium AD and no basis for suggesting any significant population movement between Antrim and Argyll in the 1st millennium AD. At best, the evidence shows a shared cultural region from the Iron Age, with some subsequent divergence in the later 1st millennium AD. Any cultural influences could be argued as likely to have been going from Scotland to Ireland rather than vice versa.'
Campbell (2001) goes on to examine evidence for an 'elite takeover', similar to the Norman invasion of England. Using comparative dating of brooches as an example, again he finds no support for the notion of dominant arrivals from Ireland. If anything, the influence is (yet again) in the opposite direction.
Wormald (1996: 142-3), referring to an earlier article of his, states:
'I have recently argued that Bede and Alfred provided the ideological charter of a new English kingdom by adapting the Israelite model to Anglo-Saxon experience of the Britons and the Vikings (1994). And, yes, I now venture the same proposal for the Scots, their compeers in ninth century statecraft.'
Campbell (2001) unpicks the written evidence and arrives at a similar conclusion. The Irish Annals of Tighernach provides the following entry for around 500 AD (cited in Campbell, 2001):
`Feargus mor mac earca cum gente dalriada partem britania tenuit et ibi mortus est' - `Fergus Mor, mac Erc, with the nation of Dal Riada, took (or held) part of Britain, and died there'.
But the names Dalriada, Feargus and Earca are Middle Irish. If they had been written at the time, they would have been in the Old Irish forms: Dalriata, Fergus and Erca. This entry could not have been made before the 10th century. In fact, the Annals appear to contain a number of insertions from the 10th century. Campbell cites a similar modification in the Senchus Fer nAlban (History of the Men of Scotland) - thought to have been originally composed in the 7th century and amended in the 10th century. This states `Erc, moreover had twelve sons .i. six of them took possession of Alba' and goes on to list the Dalriadan kings from Fergus Mor to the middle of the 7th century. But there is no reference to a migration so Campbell concludes that it refers to a Royal takeover, not an invasion. Tellingly, the use of the word Alba betrays its 10th century origins as it was not a term used before then for Scotland.
Bannerman (1974) compared the explanation for the Irish in Britain provided by Bede. This was quite different, ascribing their presence to an invader from Ireland called Reuda - hence Dalreuda. Bannerman suggested that this older tradition had been replaced by the Fergus Mor version in the 10th century for 'political reasons'. Campbell agrees: 'These sources, and some other later material, are clearly origin legends of a type common to most peoples of the period, constructed to show the descent of a ruling dynasty from a powerful, mythical or religious figure. Such genealogies, could be, and often were, manipulated to suit the political climate of the times ...'
I think that it is safe to say that we can relegate the so-called Irish invasion of Scotland to the realm of fairy tales.
posted by Diarmid @ 2:50 PM
42 comments
42 Comments:
Anselm:
Tá fáilte romhat! And thank you for the kind words about my blog.
You have the same obsession with Scots as Hitler had with the Jews. You blame them for a political situation you don't like, so yo want to deport their genetic 'race' back to their country of origin. I am sure that one day there will be a democratic majority in the north which will unify the country, and perhaps it is something to be welcomed.
I only hope for the sake of the country that racist cavemen like yourself are as far away from the island as possible.
The Jews did not come to Germany as invaders and colonists but that is how the Scots came to Ireland and that is how they live in the north of Ireland today. Being against British colonialism does not make me a racist or a Nazi.
The Scots did not conquer NI or Ireland. There were given farming land (just like the Jews were in Europe by certain nations) by the English crown (just like the American colonisers at the same time).
As I said, you are no better than one of those odious Bosnian Serb ethnic cleansers who believes that their ethnically unpure (as you try to show again and again on here), politically uncomfortable neighbouring population should be 'sent back where they came from'.
The Scots did not conquer NI or Ireland. There were given farming land (just like the Jews were in Europe by certain nations) by the English crown (just like the American colonisers at the same time).
In other words, they were in receipt of stolen property which means that the Scots who came to Ireland were criminals.
As I said, you are no better than one of those odious Bosnian Serb ethnic cleansers who believes that their ethnically unpure (as you try to show again and again on here), politically uncomfortable neighbouring population should be 'sent back where they came from'.
How you can see it as immoral to support the right of an indigenous people to reclaim land stolen from them by foreign invaders is beyond me.
"In other words, they were in receipt of stolen property which means that the Scots who came to Ireland were criminals."
Are you suggesting that all the Europeans who live in America are criminals?
"How you can see it as immoral to support the right of an indigenous people to reclaim land stolen from them by foreign invaders is beyond me."
It happened 400 years ago. Move on. Your logic would have fully endorsed the ethnic cleansing of the muslims in Bosnian (they were given land by the Ottomans 400 years ago), Slavs in the Sudeten land. And so on and so forth.
I suppose what is quite sad about your quite horrifying racism is that you really see nothing wrong with it.
A sad caveman living in some enthnically pure neverland.
Are you suggesting that all the Europeans who live in America are criminals?
Perhaps they are. That is something for Native Americans to decide.
It happened 400 years ago. Move on. Your logic would have fully endorsed the ethnic cleansing of the muslims in Bosnian (they were given land by the Ottomans 400 years ago), Slavs in the Sudeten land. And so on and so forth.
You obviously feel a great deal of sympathy for the British colonists living on stolen land in the north of Ireland, but I don't. I reserve my sympathy for the indigenous Irish population of the Six Counties. It doesn't matter to me whether that land was stolen 400 hundred years or minutes ago, it is still stolen land.
I suppose what is quite sad about your quite horrifying racism is that you really see nothing wrong with it.
It is not "racist" to want to see the indigenous Irish regain land that had been stolen from them through British colonialism.
A sad caveman living in some enthnically pure neverland.
Being against British colonialism and supporting the right of the indigenous Irish to regain their land does not make me a "caveman" sad or otherwise.
I should like to see more history and less politics; what research is out there that will provide some additional support for this theory. (On the face of it a "reverse" migration makes sense, as opposed to the traditional Ireland to Scotland theory, and one might expect more evidence from digs in Ireland to support such a "reverse" migration).
"CRZYPOPMAC@aol.com"
Ulster-Scots will be here to stay,better get used to it.
The Scots did not come from Ireland ? thank god lol
Ulster-Scots will be here to stay,better get used to it.
The Irish should treat the "Ulster-Scots" as you call them the same way you would treat any other vermin such as rats and cockroaches.
British crown, not English crown, thank you! And they were not all Lowland Scots, there were also some English settlers. If you have to place blame, blame all the religious and therefore political troubles on the English Monarchy and then the British Monarchy. Their religious beliefs caused enough deaths in both Ireland and the United Kingdom. Poor Wales was lost centuries ago - though not through the religious belief of Edward the First, but by his greed!
Peoples or tribes cannot own land. I never met a people or a tribe or even a government. Only individuals can own land. There isn't any reason why Scots cannot own land in Ireland, north or south, and any democratic government in the North would be majority Scot. So how are the Scots thieves?
Maith an fear Diarmid - when are you going to kick out the Normans and the Vikings? Fool
Irish Wolfhounds were mentioned by Julius Caesar, in his treatise, The Gallic Wars(58–50 BC), and by 391 AD, they were written about by Roman Consul, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, who received seven of them, "canes Scotici", as a gift to be used for fighting lions, bears, that in his words, "all Rome viewed with wonder".
Make ireland one again
People, you are like squabbling children, relax. I am no historian, but as far as I am aware, the Romans identified the "Scotti" as a tribe of warlike pirates who operated from the north east of Ireland, Now if the Romans named them as pirates, they were obviously giving the Romans grief. Mind, that one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Archaeologists dig in the dirt. Mo Sean Athair an Scathach. As a Gallic speaker he always used to use Argylle as his yardstick. My spelling may well be wrong, but he translated it as Airegheall, the EASTERN seabord of the Gael. Yet it resides on the West coast of Scotland. It would logically be therefore, the eastern seaboard of what is now, Co. Antrim. Remember archaeologists may also have a political agenda. I submitmy information for adult debate, no childish point scoring from one "tribe" over another.
Also to re-inforce the Eastern theme to Argylle, Armoy in Co. Antrim means "the East of the plain (bog)"
Also, my final word, for today on the subject are thus, these views of the archaeologist are from a Campbell. No such Clann exists, the are Clann Diarmuid, their Chief Diarmuid Mor. Campbell as my sean athair taught me was a pseudonym projected onto they that stuck and became their patronym. I mo teangue it means "twisted mouth" cam "twisted" bueil "mouth" A Campbell can never change, they sided with the English, they forsook Gaelic hospitality at Glencoe, and they peddle their lies to rewrite history to suit a nationalistic agenda even today. We are the diaspora, we are not o be boxed or compmentalised, we are the living breathing Gael. Is rioghal mo dhream
Dr Ewan Campbell is probably a rangers supporter and the thoughts of the Irish giving Scotland its name must make him and his friends vomit
I am from Sweden, but find it strange that a vast empire failed to beat Scotland. Yet a handful of Irish are able to conquer the whole of the west coast and all the Western Islands.
It would make more logical sense that the Picts or pirates had come from Scotland and formed a colony on the North west of Ireland. This would have given them an ideal trade link and been in a strong military position as well.
...that is to say the vast Roman Empire falied to beat the Scottish
I think you fail to notice the DNA studies that suggest that the Irish, Scots, and English DNA are almost the same, and that they are all closely related to Basques. I'm British, part Scottish, part Irish, and part English, but my Dad was born/raised in Scotland, although his great-grandmother was from Cork. Most people in the UK are mixed. Even in ancient times, the Celtic tribes intermarried and moved around. Both Dublin and York, Cork, and many other cities in Scotland, Ireland, and England, were founded by Vikings. I have cousins who are as dark as the dark Irish, and I have Scottish born cousins who are as blond and ginger haired as is seen in Ireland. If you didn't know that the Northern Irish were from Scotland 400 years ago, and you saw one in Dublin, would you know they were different on sight? No, and that's why people have to ask if someone is Catholic or Protestant, and it's the same situation in Scotland too by the way- they have to know which side someone is on through conversation. My Dad's Irish grandmother was officially catholic but she was a wise woman/healer and the second sight has passed down to us as well. I practise the Druidic faith openly now. You people in the Republic of Ireland are practising a foreign faith from the Middle East, not an Irish one, and the Gaels in Scotland are too, and then you want to argue about slightly different versions of the religion of Abraham as a reason to fight? And to discuss the Ulster Scots stealing land, well what about the ancient Irish stealing cattle from each other as a way of life (and the Scottish Gaels too btw)? The kings of Ireland once fought each other and parceled out land to whoever was in favor, so the only difference is that the kings you resent were British and not Irish, but all monarchies always behaved this way without regard for the other people involved. And what about when the Vikings stole land in Ireland? Oh, but they became a part of the local Irish population, so it's ok, right? Why are you choosing to focus on ONE event in history obsessively, and not all the other facts? If you want to be pro-Ireland, that's great, but in my opinion even if you restored Northern Ireland to whoever you think should be there, taking out the "protestants", by making the country 100% catholic, you have not even restored the true Irish faith, which is not Christian but pagan. You'd be better off working to restore the true faith to Ireland, Scotland, and England if what you really care about is heritage.
The shoe will, sadly, be on the other foot, when Levantine Muslims given land in Ireland by the EU (and sold off/out by unscrupulous landholders above market value) start to claim that "everyone is an immigrant" and that there is no such thing as someone indigenous to anywhere (well at least not in Europe). You should express more solidarity with fellow greater Britannic/Gaelic/Celtic peoples against those who would displace you all, given the chance (and Brussels is doing their best to give them the chance).
Wrong! 2018 see https://owlcation.com/stem/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity
The original Celtic where Irish Gaels though. That was the name given to them by the romans. When scotland was called Pictland, irelaIr was called, Scotia. Literally the entire island of Ireland, north and south was named Scotia by the Romans.
Not Celtoc, Scots. The original Scots where from irelIre
I must be a Leinster Norman so...
This is why the Scots and the Irish do not etymologically relate in any language.
Latin was back then what English is now, ths Lingua Franca language used as the default so people of different tongues could understand each other.
The Scots in Latin is 'Scotti', whereas the real Irish of that time were called 'Hiberni', St. Patrick wrote two statements, in one of them, St. Patrick's epistle, he clearly makes the distinction between the Scotti and Hiberni (Irish) as being quite different people, the Scotti being the small but noble class from the north whereas the Hiberni (real Irish) are the commoners and most populous people on the island.
All the actual evidence shows the Scots came from Scotland (Caledonia) and came to Ireland (Hibernia), and not just the archeological evidence either.
Whu cant we all be friends , we all immigrated at some time in our history , from Africa orinally .
Wheres orinally , East coast of Africa ? .
We could go further back to when the Irish came to Caledonia and displaced the native people mainly the Pictish people by means of what we would now refer to as ethnic cleansing. Hence the reason this country is named Scotland and there are less than 10% of the people in Scotland with Pictish DNA.
First off, I'd start with by dispencing with the word 'Celtic' altogether, it was never historically used by either to describe themselves, it was a linguistic categorisation invented in the 19th century by the English linguist Edward Lhuyd to group old languages of Britain like Cumbric and Cornish and parts of Iberia (pre-Spain) and parts of Gaul (pre-France), all the word Celtic does is get in the way by collectivising everything as the same which of course is not at all accurate.
The reality isn't that one derived from the other, but that the two distinct entities amalgamated as one overtime, in Hibernia all were nationally broad brushed as 'Irish' by Pope Leo X using 'poetic licence', so it remained ever since as their collective nationality. 'Irish' being the Anglicised form of the old Latin 'Hiberni'.
Ireland saw a period sprung out of the '19th century Celtic romance' (much rubbish was written then to capitalise on market trends of the time), known as the 'Gaelic revival' (much Gratton Flood myth ensued such as the pibroch of pipe bands which were never a tradition in Ireland historically), in preparation for their national independence movement, they needed a stronger identity and so based on that idea, they looked to Scotland, things like the Irish regional tartans were subsequently applied to different Irish territories coming out of old Edinburgh weavers in the 60s ect, another marketing gimmick i.e., ~ https://youtu.be/zwwMf5Et_tA
The Irish at that time were called Hiberni (Latin for Irish) and the island of what is now Ireland was called Hibernia.
The Scots were called Scotti in Latin, the Gàidhlig language was called 'Scottis' up until the 16th century, and Scotland's real name in that language is called 'Alba' - which is the same name of the old Pict Kingdom of Scotland (which is also attested by the Irish text known as the 'Annals of the Four Masters') and is the cognate word for Albion, the most ancient name of Great Britain.
The Scots came from Albion and conquered and settled the tip of what is Ulster in what is now northern Ireland, an area at the very north east coast called Antrim, which is closer to Scotland than it is to the south of Ireland where the real Irish of the time (Hiberni) were. The Roman's got the term 'Scot' from 'Y-Scot' - which is a native British appellation that the Welsh language used to describe the people north of Hadrians wall, not the island of Ireland, the Scots only got to Antrim in Ulster in Northern Ireland by the 3rd century, but they were in Scotland/Caledonia first.
In-fact, the first people of Ireland were all originally from Britain regardless before subsequent invasions from southern Europe and the Moors and so on came later, so it is a moot point to argue either way.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1988-9/nolan.htm&ved=2ahUKEwiww4e207rpAhUuaRUIHY99Bd4QFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3IWrnp99qRvs4ltfe16nfZ
It's not as well known about Pope Leo X and his involvement in particular, because that part of history was suppressed.
I refer pages 376-379 of Benedict Fitzpatrick's book "Ireland and the Foundations of Europe" where he states that Pope Leo X (An atheist yet once excommunicated Luther) told the Scotti settled in Hibernia that they were lying when they said they were Scots and their country Scotia, so they had the name 'Irish' imposed on them from then on along with the Hiberni (the real Irish of that time) and the Anglo settlers - who remember did not see Ireland as that different from England because Ireland was owned by the Kingdom of England then from the days of Pope Adrian IV, so they were said to "become more Irish than the Irish themselves".
Where as the Scots of Scotland (Alba) retained their ancient original national identity to this day. Fitzpatrick was an English RC historian with some Irish background. The Scyt and Scot were synonymous with Y-Scot the British appellation (used in old Welsh) from which the Latin speaking Romans derive their version 'Scotti' from.
"If it wasn't for the Scottish of this time, Luther would still be worshipping Thor at the time of the Reformation. . .dotted all over the landscape of Northern Europe as far as Russia and Iceland were Scottish schools and colleges. These Foundations became the universities and cities of modern Europe. Their brightest luminaries were men like Columbanus, John Scotus Eriugena, Duns Scotus, Marianus Scotus, St. Gall, Peter Hibernicus, and others just too numerous to mention. They were considered the terror of Rome. When Columbanus showed up in Italy, there was consternation at the Vatican".
After the fall of the Roman empire the Culdees evangelised Europe from Iceland to Italy. The Benedictines supplanted all these Scottish foundations (the Celtic/Scoto-Irish kirk) in the 12th century. As you can see from the surnames, most of these Culdees were Scots from both sides of the channel but there was also at least some Hibernians (Irish), the scholars were often named after the countries they came from, Hibernia (Eriu, Eire, Ireland ect), Duns Scotus was born in East coast Scotland in Berkwick, as early as that, it was clear which was which between the Hiberni and the Scotti.
Personal familial surnames did not become the standard in England until the Normans first arrived and came to South England in 1066, whilst the Scots and Irish mentioned surnamed themselves based on the country they hailed from instead, as in the country they derived was their relation i.e. personal name with national name, sort of similarly to the very early American settlers who called themselves 'Americanus' after America, or Roman soldiers from African countries would call themselves by their fore name and then 'Africanus' to indicate that they originally came from Africa.
The Scots Worthies - their lives and testimonies, including many additional notes, and lives of eminent Worthies - Volume one (1875).pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/?x44r%C2%ADf0jx6v02r6o
A Historical Account of the Ancient Culdees of Iona And of Their Settlements in Scotland, England and Ireland (1811).pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/?5kqe%C2%ADw15o1tnkkn6
The following excerpt is the translated word of John de Maupas on his account of Irish peer and earl of Louth John de Bermingham following the battle of Faughart in which the Irish (Hiberni in Latin) fought against the Scots (Scotti in Latin) after the Scots conquered Ireland (Hibernia in Latin) following their success in conquering the English after Bannockburn - a defeat that took England at least 20 years to recover from.
Robert I king of Scots sought to conquer Ireland and install his brother, Edward Bruce as high king of Ireland (which would be a Scottish take over of Ireland similar to what James VI King of Scots would do centuries later in 1603 with England). So when James VI of Scots took England in 1603, he also took Ireland as well, because Ireland was owned by the kingdom of England, therefore Ireland was effectively owned by the Scottish royal house with a Scottish monarch having dominion over Irish land as well as English land and the early British colonies overseas by extension.
At this time following Bannockburn however, the real Irish of the time (Hiberni), did not see the Scots as much different from the English, they were also seen as colonisers, more so infact because what is now Ireland at that time was a Papal possession owned by the Kingdom of England, and so the Anglo settlers who were said to become more Irish than the Irish (Hiberni) themselves were allied with the Irish in their efforts against the Scots of the north on both islands.
Copy and paste this link into the URL bar and read---> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1988-9/nolan.htm&ved=2ahUKEwiww4e207rpAhUuaRUIHY99Bd4QFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3IWrnp99qRvs4ltfe16nfZ
All very interesting. I love peoples emotions about history. I think you will find the are no British, Irish, Scot,NI and welsh with any land. They were ruled and slaves to the elites of the area with Celts Romans Vikings and their off shoots via Saxons Normans and the Churches owning and enslaving our Islands. As when how and why all this came about can be seen throughout written history all be it Bias toward the writers at that time. The Greeks liked facts but just the Romans and even the Vikings they could not return to their homelands with boring tales as they could not raise another voyage to the new lands to the north and west. The Romans built a wall and call areas they had divided. They then carried this forward in the form of the Church. This is how i have been taught. As for the non written evidence that is also interpreted by people of that time just like written. As i said to be so emotional about a bit of land that has never belong to 99% of the people that live their is amusing. I think myself that Celtic/Keltic tribes went back and forth throughout northern Europe and the Islands sharing and changing everyone's ideas. The Romans job was to eradicate that. Not an historian but a lover of the life of mister average.
Did you know that England is the biggest housing estate in Scotland.
Yes Europe has made it clear we are to be a housing estate for their over population though out history. Did you know my distant relative were on horse back during nearly every conflict with Scotland on both sides. Especially the big one in Stirling. One of them fought and advised them not to cross the bridge
Scotii. What a load of bunkum. I probably didn't manage to read all the drivel, but did anyone writing have any educational qualification in history? And did anyone know the results of DNA testing? I was DNA tested and, in spite of having family mentions (we were not famous, but had a distinctive alias) going back nearly 1,000 years in Scotland, the test disclosed I was 82% Irish, which I am told means we came over with the Scotii.
I just can't see the Irish being able to compete with the Scots never mind this debunked nonsense, I mean this is about Scotland, largely the same people who resisted the Roman empire, held out against the Vikings and gradually took back and bred them out, didn't even bother to compete against the Normans but invited some of them in and use them as cannon fodder against future enemies of Scotland, what are the chances? I mean no offence but the Irish aren't exactly known to be as fierce or ferocious as the Scots, they are more laid back and chill with a pleasant temperament, which had a bad hand throughout there history as a nation of being taken the loan of by other foreigners, including the Scots although they may now the see the Scots more like 'frenemies' these days as well as friendly rivals, even if the Scots are a bit less friendlier.
Not to mention, the Scots were the biggest people in all of Europe on those days, the tallest of all, they towered over the English then and the Vikings were bloody midgets back then, so when you factor all these bits in it really does paint a different picture.
They weren't Irish. You had ancient pictish people(cruthine) in nothern ireland prior to the scoti. The people of western Scotland and nothern Ireland have been coming back and forth for thousands of years hence the exchange of culture ans language.
Post a Comment
<< Home