Irish traditions amply confirm the evidence of Greek writers that Ireland was once a country of the Pretani, Cruithin, or Picts. Our own writers, in the seventh century and later, show that in their time there were numerous families, including many of high degree, in every quarter of Ireland but especially in Ulster and Connacht, who were recognised to be of Pictish descent. The problem ‘Who were the Picts?’ has long been under discussion. Ancient and firm tradition, in Britain as well as in Ireland, declared them to be quite a distinct people from the Gaels and the Britons; and some who have sought to solve the problem have ignored the existence of a large Pictish element in Ireland. The view of the late Sir John Rhys appears most reasonable, that, whereas the Celts came from Mid-Europe and belonged to the ‘Indo-European’ linguistic group, the Picts belong to the older peoples of Western Europe. They were the chief people of Ireland in the Bronze Age, and to them the Irish arts and crafts and monuments of that age may be ascribed.”

While I have clarified and amended such historical interpretations, having taken into consideration more recent archæological and historical conclusions, the direction of my enquiry is in fundamentally the same vein. Yet in the second half of the 20th century there occurred among the academic establishment a definite change in emphasis. The Irish somehow came to be considered as most definitely “Celts”, and references to pre-Celtic population groups such as the Cruthin were unaccountably deleted from most history publications. Even the present (dare I say ‘revised’) edition of the Britannica, in its section on Irish history, no longer makes mention of the Cruthin or even the ‘Galloway connection’.

Indeed, when we look closely at much of the academic material brought out over this period, it would appear that extensive ‘revision’ has indeed taken place, a revision which played down these former pre-Celtic and British aspects. It is ironic, then, that if the charge of revisionism can be substantiated, it is not with relation to The Cruthin, but to what has been taking place since the middle of the last century among the urban elite, who have indulged in a process of selective historical awareness.

Yet, even though nationalist propaganda does continue at a high level, when we come to look at what has been written by a few eminent academics in the past few years, a remarkable – and for some, no doubt, uncomfortable – about-face seems to be occurring. Increasingly, historical evaluation is returning to some of that earlier thinking, with many previous misinterpretations having been corrected, of course – and it is the more-recent history that has been found ‘wanting’.

For example, an inter-disciplinary gathering of scholars a few years ago acknowledged that any Celtic ‘invasions’ into Ireland more than probably involved population groups numerically “far inferior to the native population”. Nowadays there is a growing acceptance that our predominant genetic heritage is not “Celtic” at all but can be traced back to the Neolithic period and before, with archæologist Peter Woodman concluding: “The Irish are essentially pre-Indo-European, they are not physically Celtic.” And of the pre-Celtic inhabitants of the North of Ireland, historian Francis Byrne has pointed out that, following the “Uí Néill” invasions into Ulster, “the bulk of the population in the reduced over-kingdom of Ulaid were the people known as Cruthin or Cruithni.”

To be continued