MILESIUS AND THE IRISH INVASIONS

The first issue that he had to deal with was the one relating to what the history books said about those who were the invaders of Ireland from Spain. The Hamill genealogy showed that there was a pedigree for that family that led back to the mythical King Milesius. He needed to answer the question who was this person and was he connected to the people from Asturias? He was being sent to this unknown and obscure destination. All that he knew was that there was a connection between Spain and Ireland, through the myth that a king by the name of “Milesius” had invaded Ireland in the distant past. But historians denied the existence of Milesius. The Victorian researchers, who had investigated the matter, had come to the conclusion that this myth, like myth of the flood in the Bible, was nothing more than that – a myth. Current historians appeared to agreed with that conclusion.

The Victorians had looked for answers and put forward the hypothesis that there had been an error in translation in the past. The name Milesius must have been from the Roman or Greek interpretation of Miles, Milites – being a military man – so Milesius was simply a military man who conquered Spain, or a part of Spain. A man with no name and so a man who became a myth, which had been passed from father to son ever since.

Various historical researchers had invented possible explanations of how the name Milesius came into existence. Despite many references in texts no-one could find a king with that name. However the original name given to Milesius in Spain was .“Galamh” – so others had speculated that this came from the Irish “gall” meaning a stranger with the “amh” as a negative affix – meaning that “Galamh” meant a man who was “no stranger” – meaning no stranger to Egypt – where he had been called later in history “Milethea Espaine” which was later reduced to “Milo Spaine” – meaning a “Spanish Hero” and finally to “Milesius”. – a military man.

This didn’t sit well with him, because he knew that he was being sent to this outpost of the Spanish empire to uncover the truth. He knew that somehow the Hamills were descendants of King David and if that were true the missing link was in Spain. The connections between the name Milesius, Galamh and Milo Espaine seemed tenuous invention at best. The only thing he had to guide him was his faith in his inner voice and a belief that somehow the visit would produce evidence of an archaeological nature.

He had been involved in archaeological research before, with his involvement in the hunt for the Norman Invasion site. He knew that looking for lost links was not going to be easy in a foreign land, but took the task given to him in good spirits. One of the major lessons from the Norman Invasion research was not to take any information on board that was speculation from past researchers, especially where there was no supporting evidence. He needed to look at the source documents from which these assumptions were created. There was a certain logic that told him that something wasn’t right in what he was reading. That logic came from the fact that those who were looking for truth, but could not find it, invented names and a thesis to suit their own positions – a common issue in historical research and also theoretical science.

He was by nature a sceptic. This was a good position for a researcher to take he thought. He had little time for those in science who believed in the principals of black holes, who like academic historians have similar theoretical science backgrounds. He saw this as the inability of mathematicians and physicists to make their mathematics work. They would create their own theoretical answers, as explained as a black hole – a place where time and space ceased to exist and all matter is reduced to nothing, with such huge gravitational force that even light cannot escape from it. So, low and behold, without any evidence of scientific observation, or actual physical experience, it cannot be seen either – a wonderful creation of the best minds in the world, in an attempt to explain the fundamentals of the universe.

No, he was too long in the tooth to take theoretical name changes into account unless they had a basis in provable fact. He wasn’t going to be suckered into believing people who had never been out of their own back yards to investigate history, in the belief that their opinion counted. It wasn’t his job to decide who was a reliable source in historical thinking, it was his job to investigate all sources and so he should form his own opinion, and not rely upon thinking that was distorted by current so called “opinion”.

In this respect he was a bit of a heretic and the academic world was not at ease with his work. He had learnt to live with this and was equally distrustful of those who told him what he should or should not accept as reliable evidence. He had a deep rooted belief that most history was written in good faith and that the errors that came about were normally due to misunderstandings by people who lived now and did not understand what things were like in the past.

The first book that he read was called The Lebor Gabala Erren – which means the Book of Invasions of Ireland. There were five different versions of this manuscript including the one preserved in the Book of Leinster, which was estimated to be written around 1150AD.

He found the Celtic Literature Collective one of the best sources of translations of original Irish manuscripts. As well as holding the Leinster Version of the Book of Invasions it also held The Second Battle of Magh Turedh and a host of other valuable Irish documents – all online and mostly translated into his native tongue English. It describes the Book of Invasions as telling the story of various Irish invasions by different tribes, from the creation of the world to the people called the Milesians, who it was claimed came from Spain.

The original document was located in the Trinity College library in Dublin, which was a coincidence – because that was the university where his eldest daughter was studying politics. He took this as meaning it was a document that he should look at carefully, since coincidences in his mind identified the Divine Spirit at work. He would often tell his daughters, as they grew up –“There are no such things as coincidences” – now he wondered what that meant in this particular instance.

The first thirteen folios of the Gabala tells the story from mythical Adam and how his sons occupy different parts of the world. Next follows the history of the Gaedhil, who are the descendants of Gaedil Glas, who was born the son of Scota, the daughter of a Pharo in Egypt.

He could see that this appeared very mythical in its context, but quite a good read. He could imagine how it had captured the hearts and imaginations of those who heard these stories passed from father to son through the ages.

It claimed that Gaedil Glas was the man who originated the Gaelic language, out of seventy-two different European languages. This included most of the languages of the Mediterranean, including Italian, Ethiopian and Egyptian – quite a claim.

The story continues that Gaedil’s son Esru came out of Egypt when the Pharao was drowned in the Red Sea. It goes on to say:

That struck him as an interesting observation. Clearly the dating was wrong, but Gaedil Glas was assumed to be the founding father of the Gaels – who in turn may have become the Gauls of ancient history – who were the latter day Celts. Yet this document was also confirming that someone (irrespective of his actual name) came from Egypt to Spain. It was specifically tying in the events of the crossing of the Red Sea (Mare Rubrum) with these people – an event well known in Jewish and world history – yet there is no reference whatsoever to the Jewish nature of the event. The thing that caught his attention however was the fact these people were called the “people of God”. Not the people of the many Gods – but the people of one God, in the singular (being a euphomism for the Divine Spirit). This was a clear reference to the Bible called the Israelites and how they where known.

The story relates how four ships of people were involved. There were twenty four wedded couples in each ship and three hired help. It tells how these people went to Scythia (the eastern end of the Mediterranean north-east of Israel) and were expelled after power struggles for control. They went to the Macotic Marshes, an unidentified location which may have been the northern part of the Black Sea, where they spent a number of years. After this they travelled to Spain “along the Torrian Sea, to Crete and Sicily”. A total of approximately 200 people.

One particular name caught his eye. It was a reference to the grandson of the then king Glunfhind, who was called by the name Nuada – he was sure he had seen that name before. He could not place it, but would remember this in case it was important.

Folio 22 states; “They reached Spain thereafter. They took Spain by force” – the leader being named Brath.. It continues:

This confirms the connection between these people and the people who created the tower at Braganza. That tower was in the very north west of Spain, at Coruna in the area of Spain right next to the old kingdom of Asturias, called Galicia. If the place that these people landed was in that area, then it was possible that these people were the same escapees from Egypt. Whilst this had been dissmissed by historians it was not completely impossible he thought. The reason the story had been dissmissed was because when the Victorians looked into this they could find no king by the name of Milesius. Perhaps there was a reason he had never been found? The tower that was referred to in the Lebor Gabala was well known in historical documents. It was called the Tower of Hercules and that certainly existed. If that existed why create a story about it's creator if the whole story was untrue?

Today the site at Coruna is a world heritage site, but the original tower was not where it is today. The original tower was located at Betanzos, a little further along the coast in a protected inlet. This is confirmed by the fact that maps and documents before 1600AD call it “the former city of Brigancia”.

It is generally believed by the people of Galicia that King Broegan was the founding father of the Galician Celtic nation. He is credited with building the tower, which is believed to have existed until the second century. It may have been rebuilt under the Roman Emperor Trajan (98AD -117AD) and is believed to have been a copy of the Pharos Lighthouse of Alexandria.

The creation of this giant tower was considered to be a miracle of engineering for its time, but most importantly it was made of stone. The technology to do that had come with the invaders, who had acquired the skills of laying stones. This skill was assumed to come from Egypt because that is the only other country to build towers of stone at this time in history. The area of coast where the lighthouse was located was called the “Costa da Morte” by seafarers in subsequent centuries (the Coast of Death). He recognised that stone towers featured as a hallmark of the culture which these people brought with them from Egypt. The Egyptians were experts in stone cutting and laying. At some stage in the movement of these people they acquired this skill and took it with them from Egypt to Spain. The tower at Betanzos was recorded in history as the first in this region. If these same people moved on to Ireland then the construction of buildings in stone, as opposed to the local custom of building in wood, would be expected to move with them.

The Lebor Gabala continues with a sequence that appeared to him to be out of order with the rest of the text. It tells how Nel, who was born in the tower, went to Egypt, and married Scota the daughter of the Pharao, then retells the story slightly differently, but with much more detail. It is as if another hand has rewritten the same story, from a slightly different perspective, with the author trying to accommodate what he knows is two different accounts of the same story. This is achieved by making one story take place before the other and then replaying the story, but starting this time from Spain.

What it seemed to demonstrate to him was the incredibly difficult task ahead of unravelling an ultimate truth from the varying sources incorporated into one document. Each element of the story was probably subjected to additions and alterations, and as a result history has changed the importance of different characters in the story depending upon who retold it as time passed. Indeed most historians assumed that it was written history that held the truth, but he knew that spoken history also held elements of the truth. Every single one of the written histories that went back this far started life as spoken history. Tales told by men who learnt the art of story telling. It was possible for any one of these men to have changed just one item for it to be changed for ever. It was therefore necessary to look for those elements that were common to different sources and then seek to put the story back together.

Folio 26 opens with this qualification:

The first is the invasion by the mythical Parthelon. Then after a period of thirty years Nemed the son of Agnomain, of the Greeks from Scythia, invades with his four chieftains – the four sons of Nemed.

After these is the third invasion by different people called the Fir Bolg – so named because they were named after the bags they wore around their waist. They were the sons of Dela. In one week they took Ireland. It is reported in folio 49 that they ruled Ireland for only thirty seven years. He was interested in fact that both these earliest invaders were identified as having remained in Ireland as the dominant class for less than forty years each – less than the lifetime of one man today. In the context of the whole of time it seemed incredibly unlikely that events recorded as being so long ago would be recorded and passed on unless those events were somehow interlaced with truth. By that he suspected that the two events may well be the same – 37years to one scribe could be thirty to another. A tribe who are here for three decades could be here 30 or 37 years. In a colloquial sense of recording time, using only the spoken word, it is all too easy for things to get mixed up and become one event.

In folio 55 a new set of invaders called the Tuatha De Dannan invade Ireland and throw out the Fir Bolgs. The previous invaders are reported to be exiled in folio 51 to Ara ( the Isle of Aran in Galway Bay), Ile (the Isle of Islay off of the coast of Scotland in the Hebrides), and Rachra (Rathlin off the coast of County Antrim, Northern Ireland).

The Tuatha de Danann are reported to be skilled in the arts of the Druids. It was said that

the Tuatha de Danann brought with them the Great Fal – the Stone of Knowledge,
upon which the King would sit and other golden treasures..

This appears to confirm that the Tuatha de Danann are Druids and it is the Druids who brought with them a number of artefacts which were considered important and made with gold.

It was reported that Nuada Airgetlam was king of the Tuatha De Danann for seven years before coming to Ireland. His arm was cut off in the battle of Mag Tuiredh. He recognised the name from earlier as being the grandson of the man who brought the invaders of Spain out of the marshes. It is recorded that he was given a silver arm with activity in each finger by the Druids – an event that identifies a specific individual, which he thought may be useful later unravelling what is rapidly becoming a historical maze.

Clearly there was in his mind a link between Nuada and the Druids and Spain, possibly with Egypt through the tower, and Ireland where the Battle of Mag Tuiredh took place. If the story had been invented it would be difficult to invent it in such a manner as to involve all these elements without knowledge of the past.

Without explanation folio 60 states

He noticed that the reference to a last battle of Mag Tuired meant that whilst unreported in this document there must have been more than one – this might account for the confusion, which he was recognising as he read through the papers. He also realised that any king who ruled forty years at this time in history, must have been a very important king if that were true. However the previous references had stated that the invaders had only lasted 30 or possibly 37years. If these people were from that set of invaders there was the possibility that the 40years had been exagerated to justify the importance. He knew himself how difficult it was to transcribe documents which have been written with quil and ink in an ancient script. Perhaps forty had originaly been four and someone added a nought. Perhaps it was fourteen and somone had missheard when it was passed on? But one thing he felt confident about was that Lugh probably followed Nuada in the chronology.

The kings at that time ruled under the concept of “might or right”. The right of kingship was not decided by straight forward blood descendancy, but could be challenged at any time by any member of the Clan. The strongest – the might – had the right to challenge in combat to the death. In consequence many kings lived very short lives compared to their kinsmen. The challenge would come from those in family (the Clan), who believed they had either the right through birth and/or the might to kill the then current king to take the title and honour themselves. This simple rule of inheritance of the title made it most unlikely that any king could hold the title for forty years.

He recognised two elements of this tradition that appeared to be in synchronicity with Hebrew traditions. Firstly it was in the structure of the tribe, with a king in charge. In the case of the Celts they had a royal structure of command. Unlike the Hebrews who could not legitimately remove a king by might. However the Celts came after the tribes of Israel were dispersed – so he thought it possible the element of replacement by might (as a right) may well have served the Clan well, in a period of history when the strongest in the Clan needed to be the ones in charge.

The second element was how the tribe worked – the concept of a group of people linked to their king – just like the Hebrews. If the king wanted to move, then his people moved with him – exactly as the Celts demonstrated time and time again. In this case moving from Spain to Ireland en mass. Similar examples can be found in Europe, where the Romans constantly reported the movement of the German Celtic Tribes, who caused them so much difficulty quelling.

Next after Lugh it is reported that Daghda is king in folio 63 and the adventures of the Tuatha de Danann are listed. Lugh is noted as having a spear of renown and many of the characters involved in the story of the Tuatha De Danann found their way into Irish mythical stories – the most famous being The Spear of Lug and the Dagda Cauldron. Both of these came into existence through the adventures of the Tuatha De Dannan, who ruled a very short time in Irish history according to this document, no more than 37 years.

LEBOR GABALA ERENN – THE MILESIANS

The next section of the Lebor Gabala deals with the arrival of the Milesians – which was of particular interest to him. The Book of the Taking of Ireland edited and translated by Macalister (Dublin Irish Texts Society 1941) states that “Bregon, son of Brath had a son called Mil” and the seven sons of Mil were the ones who invaded Ireland. However in Ancient Irish Tales edited and translated by Tom Cross and Clark Harris (New York:Henry Holt 1936) the translation opens with the words:

It goes on to say in the next paragraph:

This text confirms the relationship between Mil and Bregan (aka Broegan of the famous tower). Mil was the brother of Bregan’s father and it told him that if Bregan/Broegan could be found in the area of Coruna in Galicia then his father and the mythical King Mil or Milesius could not be far away.

He decided to get a map out and have a look for himself. This was in an area of north-west Spain – not very far from where he was planning to go. If he had time he would make arrangements to visit the area to look around.

The text then continues with the story of how Ith goes to Ireland by boat and meets the three kings Mac Cuill, Mac Cecht and Mac Greine, where he was welcomed. However as he leaves the nobles plotted his death for fear he would return with men and take the country away from them. As a result Ith is killed, but his body is returned to Spain where the sons of Mil determine to avenge him – creating exactly the circumstances that the nobles had wished to avoid.

It is reported that for the reason of avenging Ith the sons of Mil invaded Ireland. Sixty five ships are reported to be in the Invasion fleet.

The text is full of detail – the sort of detail that is unlikely to be simple invention. It includes the names of all of the sons of Mil and their most important men. The text read as follows:

The point that grabbed his attention was the third line from the bottom. The people who sat in power in Ireland were now called the Tuatha De. The strict translation of this is the same as previously – “the people of the God” – yet these could not be the people of the Lord, because they were not yet in Ireland where, they were given that name – so the question that arose in his mind was “were they the same party of people who left Israel?” Clearly the writers of the various books of invasions that had been compiled into one version had mixed up who was who, because of the similarity in title. Maybe they had also mixed up who came before whom – it would not be difficult.

In early versions of the Irish Bible the expression Tuatha-De did not mean Tuatha De Danann but "People of God". Similarly the expression Fir-De was used to mean “men of God” causing great misunderstandings as to who was before whom. Fir-De could also be misunderstood to be the Fir-Bolgs – and so the mystery of who invaded whom and when was dismissed as unmanageable in historical terms – until now – because dna tells us the truth.

The word Tuatha in old Irish has the same meaning as “the people of” or put another way “tribe”. Later in the same section he found the name of the landing place for the big battle between these two tribes is Sliab Mis where the Tuatha De Danann are defeated by the sons of Mil. However there is no further reference in the text to Mil himself, or any explanation of what happened to him, whilst his sons fought in Ireland.

The Lebor Gabala recites two poems detailing the events of that time. The second of these it reports the words of the poet Roigne Roscadach, the son of one of Irelands most famous ancient kings Ugaine Mor – who knew the words by heart. It was of great interest to him because it claimed a provenance that must have been believed to be true at the time of writing and was unlikely to survive if not believed. It said:

These verses contained a number of interesting elements. Firstly it confirmed to him that the so called 66th King of Ireland Ugaine Mor believed that he was the king by virtue of his ancestor Mil, and that it was his tribe that had ultimately travelled from Scythia. But there was no mention of any Jewish connection, but the reference to the crossing of the Red Sea inferred an unsaid connection to the Israelites.

Scythia was in Eurasia and inhabited by Scythians from 8th century BC to the second century AD – the period he was covering in his research. The exact extent of the territory was open to debate, but could certainly have included the Jewish tribes who had originated in the same area. Indeed Abraham himself would probably have been described in ancient literature as a Scythian, at the time of the Irish Invasions. He is reported in the Bible to be the head of one such wandering tribe.

The story also confirms again that these people came via Egypt, after the Egyptians under the rule of Cingeris, was destroyed by the Red Sea. In this instance Niul marries Scota – the daughter of the Pharao and they “took the name Gaedels”. A clear and concise confirmation that they changed their names.

The story in the Lebor Gabala confirms that a certain man by the name of Golom in this part of the text married Scota and was with child. As if to confirm matters it also restates that:

“A name was changed for them and they advance past Africa”.

Later it reports a numerous progeny, who are called the eight sons of Golam – Golam and Mil appearing in the last few lines to be the same person, but this is not said and it cannot be taken for granted.

At this point the two lead sons of Mil called Hereman and Eber, divide Ireland in two and the story effectively finishes with the Milesians in control of Ireland. This is the dawn of Irish history as it has been written down. Unlike other histories the Irish history has been recorded and passed from father to son. This too in many ways mimics the cultural concept of maintenance of the family/clan genealogy, still kept by the Jews. The reason the Irish developed this in parallel to Jewish practices may well be because of a common distant past.

He read this text in the Gabala to mean that there are two sets of information being processed into one. At one point the man who is king is called “Golam” and at another point the same man is called “Mil”. Yet the text does not seek to explain why. He concluded that it must be assumed that those who wrote the text knew the answer and it did not need to be written down. Anyone familiar with this culture should be able to understand this issue. We – like the Victorians who researched these matters, have simply lost our understanding of how things were in those days.

Like many readers before him he sat down and pondered what he had read. It appeared at first to be a concise description of events. However he knew that they could not possibly be right – exactly as many historians before him. The names, even in the same sections of text were different one from another. Sections appeared to be repeated and most importantly of all there appeared to be two, possibly three different people who could be Mil, Golam or Gaedel, not to mention Nuil and others.

The solution he decided was to refer to a different authority who had already been through the same learning curve. He wasn’t convinced that changing the source of the information would be able to throw any additional light upon events, but at least he had the benefit of Divine assistance to guide him, should he need it. He was sure that matters would fall into place in the course of time.

The traditional view by historians was based upon trying to make the Lebor Gabala fit the current thinking – which of course it did not. In order to reconcile the anomalies it is believed it is necessary to interpret the writing as being influenced by the politics of the day. The Lebor Gabala identifies the Milesians with the Gaels, but modern historians point out that this text was written by an Irish cleric in the late twelfth century, soon after the Norman conquest. It is therefore assumed that this work is tainted by an attempt to create Ireland as a separate identity from Britain.

This is given as the reason why all the Irish tribes have a Gaelic ancestry and there is no mention any of the earlier tribes or those who had unknown origins. Indeed the Clan NaMile is not mentioned in any genealogy and it is assumed it did not exist. What the historians of the day have failed to understand is that the chronology is erroneously reported due to misunderstandings of the names of those tribes. The Gaels who came from Belgium (the De Dannan) also had the same ancestry (and in some documents are called the Fir Bolgs) – so in many respects were indistinguishable from those who were there prior to the invasions (sometimes called the Tuatha Dé and sometimes called the Tuatha de Dannan) – an absolute impossible task to unravel without dna evidence to explain how history becomes myth – and eventually becomes knowledge again.

A brief examination of who were the authorities on Irish history showed him that there was one leading authority that shone above all others – a man by the name of Geoffrey Keating.

Like the Gabala Keating’s work is also preserved in the Library of Trinity College Dublin. It was first published in 1723. Keating was born around 1570 in Bruges and was educated in Bordeaux. It seemed strange to him that a man educated in France should devote his life to such a massive undertaking in Ireland.

Unlike any man before, or since, Keating took to the road and decided to research Irish history in a definitive and extensive way. Keating personally visited the ancient libraries held by the monks in Irelands monasteries. Keating found material on old vellums in those monasteries and the brehons, as they existed about the year 1630. He rewrote them in his own version of Gaelic, without inventing or embroidering the tales. Indeed his greatest claim to fame is that he wrote what he was told or read – in order not to preserve the truth, but to preserve what information there was – even though one version of events may directly contradict another. Most men would have chosen one or the other – Keating would record both knowing that it was not possible for him to determine which was correct. Thus he did a great service to humanity, because without this information being preserved in this way, the ultimate truth could not be known now. Many academics have therefore tarred Keating’s work with the brush of being “unreliable”.

Keating has suffered undue criticism by modern historians, because he wrote what he recorded and did not synthesize out what did not fit. As he started to read through the documents he realised modern historians have little credibility in the area of new historical research. They sit in front of their computers regurgitating in their books what others have written and little else. It is extremely rare to find any name in the current landscape who has contributed anything to modern understanding of the history of Ireland before 400AD. Indeed it is almost impossible to find anyone in the world of history prepared to make any statement regarding history pre 400AD.

This is despite there being a wealth of documents related to the period before 400AD. The only thing they can all agree upon is that they all have it wrong to date – so in that context Keating’s work is a monument to the work of historical research, which should be applauded.

The History of Ireland by Keating takes in all the available sources that could be found today and much more. It is written in two books: the first book is about Ireland up to the time of the arrival of Saint Patrick –whom Irish historians are obsessed; the second book from the arrival of Patrick down to the time of writing.

He had learnt the hard way in his research of the Norman Invasion site that historians are crudely biased towards their own belief systems. They have grown up with a mind set that tells them that what they have been told is the correct answer – even though there are elements to the story that do not fit.

The Irish Invasions story was a classic example of recorded history being dictated to by an academic fraternity who simple wished to keep the status quo – because they had all written their own books regarding the position they had adopted. None could agree who was right and so the consensus was they were all wrong before Niall of the Nine Hostages (Nial Mor – Monarch 126). The 126th Monarch was the agreed start point where all serious historians started their work. Anything before this point was pure speculation, despite the documents that are accepted as authentic before the 126th Monarch being used as justification by the very same academics for those Kings of Ireland who came much later.

He decided to concentrate on seeking to uncover the course of events prior to the 126th Monarch of Ireland (Niall Mor) of the hostages fame. This was the area of history that linked the Irish kings around 400AD to the Milesians in 600BC. This was a period of 1200 years which were covered by the area of myths in historical terms. There was little point in covering the period after 400AD, because most historians agreed upon Irish history from that point onwards. If his information was correct the Milesians were connected to the Kings of Ireland by blood and would prove to be the descendants of one of the lost tribes of Israel.

THE HISTORY OF IRELAND – GEOFFREY KEATING

Keating opens his book with a harsh critique of those who have written before him on the subject of the history of Ireland, most of which seems in the light of modern understanding to be completely justifiable. Prior to Keating many views would be expressed without certain knowledge or justification – Keating spares no blushes in calling a spade a spade – which clearly won him no friends in academic circles of the time. He realised he was doing exactly the same, but unlike Keating this book was not written for historians. It was written upon the instructions of the Divine Spirit and he would report what ever he found, irrespective of how difficult it may be for the historical establishment.

Section One of Book One deals initially with the name of the country – Ireland and how it came into existence. Keating records Eire as the fourth version of the name and confirms it might have come from Egypt however:

"The common opinion of antiquaries that why it is called Eire is from the name of the queen of the Tuathe Dé Dannan who was in the land at the time of the coming of the Clanna Mileadh into it; Eire, daughter of Dealbhoath, was her name, and it was she was wife to Mac Créine who was Ceathur who was king of Ireland when the sons of Mileadh came to it."

This is the first reference to the sons of Mil – but Keating unlike others records the name in Gaelic, as it was understood to be. Mil (pronounced meal) being the Anglicised version. It is also noticeable that he appears to be confused in regards to the difference between Tuatha Dé and Tuatha De Dannan – since there is an acute sign over the De, as in the French pronunciation for “god” – dei

Keating has also recorded the Milesian Invasion as coming at the time Mac Greine was king. This is the same king as he recorded earlier, but with a different spelling, confirming who was king at the time.

Keating is also alone in using the expression Clanna Mileadh in the Irish tradition. It is this expression Clanna – for Clan – as opposed to Tuatha that led to the solution of one of the greatest mysteries of these texts – where the name Mil came from? Clanna being the correct spelling and pronunciation of a word that meant "sons of" (Clan na) in Gaelic – the expression the Irish would have used at the time. Keating was technically correct to record the matter in this form, but English historians hated what they considered his countrified ways, in an era that came under scrutiny when language use was considered a definition of your own breeding.

Section Two Book One deals with what he calls “each division which was made on Ireland”. He records seven divisions as follows:

1) The division by Partholon who divided Ireland into four parts.
3) The division by the Fir Bolgs into five parts called the five provinces by the five sons of Deala
4) The fourth division by the children of Mileadh – the sons of Mileadh
5) The fifth division by Cearmna and Sobhairce
6) The sixth division by Ugaine Mor into twenty-five parts
7) The seventh division between Con Ceadchathach and Mogh Nuadhat

Throughout his work Keating uses an old version of Gaelic that he has preserved in his names and the use of the language. This has led to others misunderstanding how those names were actually pronounced and written differently in other research works. This makes it exceedingly difficult for those who are not of native Irish tongue to understand who is whom, when names that are the same are spelt in completely different manners, depending upon how the author has translated them.

Section Three to Seven deals with the period up until the invasion by the Fir Bolg, however Keating has reported a chronology that cannot be correct. He reports the arrival of Simeon Breac, the son of Starn, as a son of Neimheadh (Nemed) in Ireland from Greece. This cannot be correct because Simeon Breac( in 2 above in Section Two of his book) is King number 44 in the Milesian pedigree. Simeon Breac was a son of Hermon – the lead Milesian king after Mil (also in 4 above) who was a later invader. This is an example of Keating recording what he was told and why historians hate working with this information. Unable to explain what is written they right it off as unacceptable rather than seek to understand it.

Section Eight deals with the invasion by the Fir Bolg. Keating reports that 1130 ships are involved and the invaders are the sons of Deala. A man by the name of Slainghe was the eldest son.

Keating goes on to confirm what we have learnt through the Lebor Gabala Erenn:

“Fir Bolg, indeed, from the bags of leather they used to have in Greece,
carrying earth to put it on bare flags, so that they might make them flowery plains in bloom……
thirty six years was the length of the dominion of the Fir Bolg over Ireland.”

That aspect of that description of the Fir Bolg sounded remarkably like the practices carried out in the Aran Islands, in Galway Bay, on the western extremities of the Irish coast. He remembered seeing Irishmen carry seaweed to cover the barren land in an old Hollywood film many years before called "The Man of Aran". It was because the land was so exposed to the elements that it was necessary to cover the cracks in the stones (which looked like flag stones) in order to grow anything. Such a reference could not apply to mainland Ireland which was lush and wooded at the time.

Keating then quotes a verse where he reports the same people as "the Tuatha Dé, which adds to the confusion. However once you realise that the Tuathe Dé were the “people of God,” it is clear that these same people were probably the Milesians. In consequence there was only one conclusion he could draw and that was the text was jumping backwards and forwards between different sets of invaders in one description in order to reconcile what was believed when the text was written.

Section Nine deals with the Kings of Ireland who took the sovereignty of Ireland. It indirectly explains how the confusion arises. Keating reports that the Fir Bolg are the first invaders of Ireland and Slainghe (son of Deala) is the first king of Ireland. Then after Slainghe there are seven more kings up to the point where Eochaidh, son of Erc , was killed at the battle of Magh Tuired. In this battle Nuadha Airgeadlamh had his hand cut off – as reported in the Lebor Gabala. This is despite the earlier recording in Section Two Book One that the Fir Bolgs were listed as the third invasion.

Keating says that the Fir Bolg who escaped from the battle were put to flight before the Tuatha De Dannan to Islay, Aran and Rathlin – and many islands beside. So the confusion is explained by one version in the book believing that Nuada Airgeadlamh was a De Dannan who took over from the Fir Bolgs. In another part we see the De Dannans had been muddled in history with the Tuatha Dé. Those who recorded these events believed that the Tuatha Dé were the same as the Tuatha De Dannan – an easy mistake to make – but one that is fatal when trying to understand the chronology of the invasions. They did not appear to understand that the sons of Mil were one of the first invaders and that the others must have come later. A mistake that produces constant confusion and errors. These errors show up periodically throughout the recorded history, when people who have unique identities (such as Nuada of the silver hand) appear more than once or in the wrong place. Unfortunately due to the nature of Irish naming some names had a host of different spellings and derivatives. Names were often descriptions of the people, as opposed to the later concept of naming according to occupation or place. In consequence it was easy to make a mistaken identity – with wrong chronology. This rapidy becomes a historical research nightmare that no-one to date appears to have understood. Having read this explaination I am sure that you the reader must by now be truly confused too.

Section Ten deals with the Stone of Destiny which was brought to Ireland by the Milesians. Keating refers to these people as the Tuatha Dé Dannan throughout this section, but in fact were the Tuatha Dé – the Milesians – the people of God. Keating records that the stone was used to inaugurate the first King of Scotland and was sent there by King Muircheartach (Monarch 122). It also records that as well as the Stone of Destiny the Tuatha Dé brought with them the Spear of Lugh and the Cauldron of the Dagda. Again this information is incorrect, because Lugh and the Dagdha were both kings after the Milesians were vanquished and consequently these items could not have been brought with them at the time of their invasion. If there was any basis in the story it would mean that it was the Milesians who brought with them the Stone of Destiny and other relics.

However these stories still told him quite a lot about the cultural heritage of the people involved. Clearly they believed that certain things had magical powers and they believed in carrying these things with them, even when they travelled from country to country. It reminded him of the Hebrew culture of carrying religious artifacts in the Ark of the Covenant. The report that the royal stone was brought with the invaders and other artifacts confirmed to him another cultural link.

Whilst it was a cultural link there was an important thing missing from the story. If these were the Hebrews who were originally from Israel, via Egypt, why was no presence of the Divine Spirit in this story. The people who came from Spain to Ireland appeared to have no direct correlation with the Jews who were reported to have left Jerusalem with Johannon and Jeremiah the prophet. If these were one and the same people they appeared to have left the Divine Spirit behind them, because they brought with them a new understanding of what the Divine Spirit was.

The people who came to Ireland in that first invasion were definitely understood today to be what are considered Celts. These people had a religious base in what we now call Druidism, which they took to Ireland with them. This was a new religeon and culture that also has lost it's source. This is believed to have been the worship of the gods who appeared in the landscape as spirits and through the worship of the sun. In many respects a religion that sees the Divine Spirit in a similar way to how he saw the Divine Spirit – present in all things – especially the forces of nature. None the less the Divine Spirit as known in the Old Testament was most definitely missing.

This section of Keating’s work also confirms that there are two battles of Magh Tuireadh known as the battle of Magh Tuireadh North and Magh Tuireadh South, with thirty years in between. He had been right to suspect that these two events existed and that those who wrote down the events many centuries later may well have mixed up what happened at each. The fact that there were thirty years in between appeared to confirm that one set of invaders lasted thirty years – however at this stage it was impossible to say which. According to what Keating reported it could have been any of them, depending upon which section of his reports you wished to believe.

None the less Keatings work was valuable research data. Here he could see definite confirmation that the Battle of Magh Tuireadh appeared to play a pivotal part in Irish history. It consisted of two separate battles separated by thirty years – possibly 37years. One battle brings in one set of invaders and the other sees them exiled. The place of exile was almost certainly the islands to the perimeters of Irish influence – Aran, Islay and Rathlin. The same place where the bag people have passed on their culture.

Sections Eleven through to Section Twenty Five provides chronologies of people who had influence in Irish life. Many irish families were covered and sought to provide an explanation of the true origin of the Gaedheal (Gaels).

Keating stated that he believed the information confirming the Gaels came from Greece (where it was believed the Scythians came from) was weak, but could provide no alternative evidence. He also reported (in Section Fifteen) that it was common for these people to record information on wooden tablets in three languages. These were Greek, Latin and Hebrew. The inclusion of Hebrew appeared to confirm that there was a connection with the Jews, but it was being obscured by the way the history had been recorded. There was no other logical connection between the use of Hebrew, the language solely of the Jewish people, and the Gaels. Indeed it is quite unclear from Keating’s recording of history who the Gaels were. It appeared to him to confirm that the Gaels and the Milesians were one and the same – recorded at different times and combined into one story featuring different names.

There is information in Keatings history here in this section that he was unable to find recorded anywhere else, involving the Milesians trip from Egypt to Spain. The Pharaoh is named as Nectonibus in this section, who provides Milidh with land and welcomed him as a result of Milidh killing the king of Scythia.

It is recorded that Milidh spent seven years in Egypt and like the Lebor Gabala confirms that Milidh marries Scota the daughter of the Pharao. Then the journey to Spain is recorded, including the births of Milidh’s sons Eibhear, Fionn and Aimhirgin and Colptha.

What struck him as interesting was the fact that Mil (or Milidh) had a host of sons, all of which had names that passed on through history as presumed correct and never disputed by historians. However the name Mil was reported differently and he could not quite put his finger on what this was telling him.

Then there is an interesting passage relating to the exploits of Milidh which reads:

Thereupon he proceeded from the mouth of the River Nile through the Torrian Sea till he landed on an island close to Thrace, which is called Irena; and it was here Ir son of Milidh was born. Thence he proceeded to an island called Gothia, which lies in the channel leading to the northern ocean; and he dwelt there for some time, and it was there Scota bore him a son called Colptha. Thence they proceeded into the narrow sea which separates Asia from Europe on the north, continued in a westerly direction, having Europe on the left, till they came to Cruithentuaith, which is called Alba. They plundered the coasts of the country, and afterwards proceeded, having Great Britain on their right, and reached the mouth of the River Rhine, and continued in a south-westerly direction, having France on the left, and after they landed in Biscay.

It was clear to him that even with the scantiest knowledge of geography this journey could never be correct and must be a compilation of some other event, because the journey changes direction half way through. The reference to the Rhine and Alba (Scotland) indicated that a journey involving the Rhine and Scotland may have played a part in history, but was recorded in the wrong time and place.

Keating placed this journey between Egypt and Spain, because people at that time had no knowledge of geography. He wrote down what he had read and was told. However one of his most important observations followed in Chapter eighteen. There he records:

“ Eight sons of Galamh of the shouts,
Who was called the Milidh of Spain.”

Suddenly he understood the significance of what he was reading. The man they were following in text was called “Galamh of the shouts” but he had a title – that was why he was called the Milidh. The word Milidh was not his name – it was his title – it was “King” – King of Spain.

The significance of this simple observation hit him squarely in the chest. Every time there was a reference to a man called Milidh in these documents the author was not referring to a person, but referring to a generic title – “the King”. That was why Milidh was also “Galamh”. Golam, Galam and others were all “the king” at the time they were recorded by different scribes – none of whom knew the expression – and so wrote it as spoken to them.

The critique of the Milesian legends on the Cumann Clan Lochlan web site is a stinging indictment of the whole Milesian story and is summarised as follows:

These tales are recounted in numerous books on Irish history; even the Four Masters saw fit to include them in their compendium of Irish annals in the 17th century. But there is no one Milesian legend; there are numerous versions, none of them agreeing completely with the others, some radically different. In some versions it is King Milesius of Mil who led the Gaedil (Gael) to Spain. In some versions we are told his real name was Golamh. In other versions Gaedil glas or Gathelos led the Gaedil to Spain. In yet another version the leader of the Gaedil on the trek to Ireland was Nel and his father Aeneas (they never stopped in Spain). In some versions, Nel, the son of Feinius Farsaid, king of Scythia, went to Egypt and married Scota, the daughter of Pharoah. In others a later descendant also went to Egypt and married Scota, the daughter of pharoah. In some versions the Gaedil went from Scythia to Egypt, back to Scythia then on to Spain. In others they went from Scythia to Egypt and back to Scythia; then from Scythia to Egypt yet again before sailing to Spain. In at least one version they never went to Spain at all! In some versions the sons of King Milesius were the last to invade Ireland; in others the last invasion was led by a Simon Breach.

This is a typical analysis of the Milesian legends by those who believe in their own authority and are quick to criticise without understanding the issues. However despite reading all the information on the Milesians the author of this critique, like all authors before him, has failed to understand the significance of Keating’s statement. He has ignored Keatings confirmation that Milidh was “the Milidh of Spain”, because it doesn’t fit current thinking and so Keating will be considered unreliable, because there are documents that are written earlier than Keating recorded his – despite using the same sources. The reason there are so many names and they all seem to be telling different stories slightly differently is obvious. Any serious historian will know that history is compiled by people who take all the available sources and make one conclusion from it. All those sources are never, and I say never the same, so to create a critique based upon the fact that these sources use different names is a complete nonsense. The stories are different because they are each told from a different perspective. They also have been written at different times and suit different political purposes - often the reason for them being recorded in writing in the first place.

None of the people responsible for writing these documents has deliberately created a myth for future generations. They were written at the time by people who believed what they wrote to be the truth. The whole idea that these documents came into existence through some sort of deliberate distortion of history, shows the failings of those who study these matters to provide a satisfactory explanation – not the apparent fault of the documents. In consequence a good historian looks at those documents and seeks those elements that are common. Those that are common have the silver thread of truth. There is no conspiracy theory involving the Milesian legends as some historians would seek to suggest.

Each scribe in this case is clearly trying to reconcile the names they knew based upon their own dialect and source. “The Milidh” was the inherited title of the person being written about – the King of the time, the king of that particular story – not the story of one man, but at least two and possibly many who held the same title. It was that title that led to the conclusion which is undoubtedly a crutial part of the “missing link” that confirms the Milesians connection to the Kings of Ireland.

Keating’s reference to "Clanna Milidh" led him there. It is all to do with how the words are said – not how they are written. This was a time when history was not recorded in documents. This was the Clan of the King – once you understand that Milidh was the King. It wasn’t Mil or Mile who was a king, as every historian had searched through history to find – it was the clan that was the most significant element. The Clan of the King – clannamile – yes Clan NaMile – in Irish – Clan Hamil in Hebrew – Clan Gamilidh in Spanish!!! Indeed he had already been told that the Gaels recorded history later on wooden tablets in Hebrew – surely that should ring a bell?

The tribe of the King would in Jewish tradition be named after the king. The name of King David was David HaMelech – David – of – the king. He would then be named from his father Ben Jesse if he were not king. The later part being dropped upon attaining the title.

It was so obvious he could not understand why he had not seen it before. The Lebor Gabala and Keating both record that they changed their name. They dropped the Jewish title of Clan HaMalech to obscure their roots, as Jews throughout history have done when in exile. They moved from being Clan HaMelech to Clan HaMile – or as spoken ClannaMile, as a result of the Spanish inability to pronounce the H in names.

They changed their name not because it was good to do. It was done because the Babylonian fleet was probably looking for them. The Babylonians had one of the best navies of the day and if they were found they would all die – it was an act of survival.

The result was that when the Clan left Spain for Ireland with their king they were asked who they were by the locals when they arrived in Ireland. The answer is correctly interpreted by Keating as Clan NaMile, but written Clanna Milidh by Keating in his local Gaelic version in 1650AD.

Clan NaMile is using the ancient Irish naming tradition by translation of Clan HaMelech – “the people(clan) of the(Ha) King (Melech).” When taken into Irish culture the Clan Ha Melech translates into ”People(Clan) of the(Na) Milech”. In Ancient Irish Clan Na Mile translates into “sons of Mil” because the invaders had dropped the “ech” from the end of their name, a name ending probably unpronounceable by both Spanish and Irish at that time.

This was a dynamite discovery, because it blows out of the water the claim by historians that there was no king of Spain who ever lived with that name. The simple truth was that as soon as the HaMalechs arrived from Judea, via Egypt, all kings of that tribe carried the title HaMelech, until the tribe left for Ireland. At that stage they became the sons of Mil – ClanNaMile.

There are many similarities in naming traditions throughout the western world. A king was vary rarely called by his real name, in the same way a lord would be called “my lord” in naming culture in England throughout the Middle Ages. So the king was called HaMelech in Jewish culture. A culture that through language translation was pronounced Clan GhaMile and a thousand years later in a different country was eventually written down as Clan Na Mil and so Mil was the king.

This naming tradition not only provided a link between the kings of Spain and the Irish kings, but also confirmed the source of the Spanish kings as being the HaMelech dynasty. This naming link providing the first firm proof of the connection between the Kings of Ireland and the royal blood line of King David – exactly as confirmed in the Henry Hamill of Georgetown genealogy.

It was a remarkable observation, but not one that he could confirm. He now needed secondary confirmation of the naming links. Maybe Keating made a lucky mistake. The question was how to do this? Keating appeared to have done a very thorough job in his research, but he knew that he had to find a way to check the information.

Further study of Keating’s book showed that chapters twenty five through to the end of Book One contained detailed chronologies of the Kings of Ireland, with the number of years that each lived. Most of this information had been taken from the Annals of the Four Masters.

He concluded that if the information regarding these Irish Kings were really connected to the kings descended from lost tribe of Judea, then the dating would have to fit. There was no reason for the Four Masters to create fake dates for the number of years the kings would live.

He had been involved in a similar exercise involving the Norman Invasion site. Nothing in history is simple. Dates do get changed by those who come later, for reasons of political gain. History does get rewritten by those who come later – but taken over all it is usually possible, through the use of ancillary information from other sources, to spot errors that have crept into existence through the influence of corrupt copying.

Keating had access to many sources – the most prolific of these was the Four Masters. It was important to look at these source documents to make sure that nothing had been lost along the way.

THE FOUR MASTERS

The Annals of the Four Masters were compiled around 1600 from a number of different versions and probably formed the basis of much of what Keating wrote. It is noticeable that this compilation happened during Keating’s own period of study and lifetime. The documents were written in Irish and like the other manuscripts are kept at Trinity Library in Dublin. These documents are one of the main Irish language sources of Irish history. Many of the earlier chapters are like the English Annals, a list of names and dates. There are also first hand accounts of events that are invaluable to a history researcher.

Whilst it is possible to report dates that may be in error the inclusion of a certain king killing another ties the two together in a way that cannot be altered. It is not possible for one to live before the other if already he has been killed. Similarly major events that are recorded as being in the lifetime of a specific king do not allow that event to be in anything other than the time period of the reign of that king.

Armed with this host of information it should be possible to compile a list of kings, which can have an authentic dating, based upon cross-referencing. In a worst case scenario the maximum ability for the dating to drift would be the date range of the king with the smallest reign containing a significant event.

There was however a problem with the information provided by the Four Masters. It had been compiled by people who had one vision of the world – that was dictated by the Bible – a book which they considered inviolable. In consequence the authors have sought to relate the dates of the Irish Kings to those dates that are recorded in the Bible – namely the birth of Adam and the mythical flood.

Kings are dated according to the years that they live. In order to make this fit a dating scheme had been worked out which places the first entry as 40 days before the Flood when Ceasir came to Ireland with 50 girls and three men in the year 2242 years after beginning of the world. The Fir Bolgs arrive in 3266 and the Milesians arrive on the year dated as 3,500 years since the birth of the world – a nice convenient date that is easy to remember.

These dates had been assumed to be correct in that they ended at the time the documents were written. However any serious historian will know that making a list of kings fit by simply placing one after the other, subtracting the number of years they reigned, and working backwards results in a complete chaotic summary of what actually happened in the real world.

History has shown us that Ireland was ruled by many kings, because the country was divided into many subkingdoms, often ruled by the same clan leaders (sons and brothers). In consequence there could be up to five kings of Ireland at any one time and possibly more. A king for each of the provinces, as they became known. This basic observation of life in Ireland in the distant past was completely overlooked by Victorian historians , who assumed that Ireland like the England they lived in, only ever had one king at a time. This is a most horrendous flaw in understanding how the past was recorded.

There was Leinster, Meath, Connaught, Ulster and Munster to name the main feudal kingdoms. Sometimes there was one king and at others more than five. The idea that the history of Ireland could be documented as one list of kings came about simply because at the time these documents were written down by the Four Masters, that was how Ireland was ruled – by one king. Those who wrote the list only ever knew a world where there was only one king at a time. They could never envisage any other system and like the story being related to the Bible they made it fit.

The history of the Irish provinces is well illustrated in the history of Ireland in maps at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire000.htm The dates are inevitably wrong at present, but the people who created these subdivisions are recorded in documents, which effectively confirm the correct dating, once the process of their creation is understood. Ptolemy is one of the first to record the tribes of Ireland in a map.

.

This map records a host of tribes across Ireland, many of whom had kings. Somehow the message never made it through to the Four Masters that some of these kings lived at the same time as others.

The result of this work has been that all of the subsequent historical researchers sought to create one list of kings, upon the principal that there was only one king of all Ireland at any one time. He saw this as a fatal flaw of logic, that no-one had sought to resolve until now. In consequence the often stated belief that correct dating of kings before Niall of the Nine Hostages (400AD) is impossible, assumes the information relating to number of years a king ruled, by the Four Masters, must also be incorrect – or put another way - was unreliable.

He saw this is a historical cop-out by those who seek to undermine others work, but cannot find fault in the work itself – they blame the source. You cannot justifiably criticise work that comes from the same source as those dates you have accepted. If you accept that the work done from 400AD to modern times is authentic, you cannot simply deny that the dates prior to 400AD are unreliable when they are mainly sourced from the same documents.

As a result of the misunderstanding relating to how many kings ruled at any one time the list of Irish Kings produced by the Four Masters can produce completely impossible events. Sometimes a son is killed before his father is born and unconnected people can live vast periods of time in order to make the theoretical chronology fit. The solution to this quandary has been the holy grail of many historians – including Keating – but never possible to unravel. Now that basic truth is about to be revealed.

He thought about this for a while, as it seemed a logical thing for him to do next – to write the chronology of the Kings of Ireland. He was now in possession of a great deal of information relating to those kings. However there were more manuscripts to look at that were now available through internet scrutiny. Unlike Keating he now had the Internet at his disposal. There were many family genealogies and documents lodged around Europe which Keating would have missed. There were also myths reported on a host of mythological web sites, which have never probably been researched by historians – he should now look at these first before seeking to look at the dating issue.

The next source was a Victorian historical researcher, who like Keating wrote a major work on Irish genealogy called Irish Pedigrees. The author was John O’Hart:

JOHN O’HART – IRISH PEDIGREES

This book was published in 1878 and its correct title was Irish Pedigrees – The Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation. It documents the mythical genealogy of four sons of Mil, whom O’Hart believed all true Irish families were descended from. In many respects this is a recent work of historical research given the distance of time of the period under study.

Unlike Keating this work details genealogies, as they were believed to be, by Irish families in the Victorian era. O’Hart used the works of O’Clery, O’Farrell, MacFirbis and the Annals of the Four Masters as source documents. Then he used the works of Burke, Collins, Lodge and Ware to extend the genealogies up to the 17th century.

Like Keating he believed all genealogy started with Adam and wrote his work accordingly. Like Keating he assumed one king was in control of Ireland at any one time. The result is that like Keating the list of kings bears no relationship to what happened in the real world, but created a list that appeared to be believable, if ignorant of the facts.

Like Keating it would be foolish to dismiss the work simply because the dates of the kings were wrong. This was a universal mistake. What was relevant was O’Hart had recorded a host of genealogies that might otherwise have been lost? This information is now invaluable in seeking to determine how to put back together the correct list of kings.

O’Hart’s genealogies cover families in Ulster, Leinster and all elements of the Milesian genealogical tree. As a result much of the information published involves people who inter-acted with Keating and others from the same trees. Using this information it is possible to cross check genealogies and from that refine the veracity of what the dates of any individual in that tree should be.

O’Hart simply took the list of kings extending it ever backwards like Keating. He too did not recognise that the Kings of Ireland lived in parallel with other kings of different areas, because at this time there was only one monarch of all Ireland – Victoria. With no information to the contrary he, like Keating, assumed this has always been the case, although to be fair to Keating he acknowledges the difficulties in his work – O’Hart simply ignores inconsistencies that cause difficulties.

What was important about O’Hart’s work was he recognised that each king came from a specific source. That source was in his mind King Milesius – who had four sons, who created the dynasty. O’Hart came from an Irish Nationalist background – so it suited him to believe what others might now consider nonsense.

Indeed it is easy to see how historians get sucked into the politics of history, based upon the outside thinking of the time. In O’Hart’s time there was a great rebellion against central government and the Irish nationalists sought to prove their Irishness through written history. It therefore suited O’Hart to claim all true Irishmen were descendants of Milesius, because it legitimised the Irish struggle.

That does not however mean that the information gathered was provided falsely, or as part of any nationalist conspiracy theory. The information was believed by those who gave it and in their eyes justified the position they took. O’Hart looked for the links back to Milesius and found it where ever he looked. He did what all good historians do and recorded it with his assumed authority.

As a result of recognising the four sons of Mil as being the ancestors of the true Irish – so called “old families” – O’Hart appears to have discarded any others who did not fit this definition. However he studiously followed through the pedigrees of all those he could find, marking them with the source as either Heremon – from the eldest son, Heber Fionn, Ir or Ith depending upon which son the lineage came from.

Due to the diligence of his work O’Hart has become synonymous with what current historians consider the recognised list of the Kings of Ireland. This numbering system has become the established numbering system. As a consequence this was the numbering system he used in his research to begin with, because that is what everyone else did.

The numbers start at 1 for the first Milesian King – son of Mil - Heremon 1699BC. They run through to Monarch number 174, dated at 978AD by O’Hart. Against each monarch he detailed a letter to determine which family the king was associated with. Each of the four sons of Mil, who had descendants, were identified by either the letter E for Eremon (sometimes written Heremon - another example of dropping the "H"), H for Heber Fionn (or Eber Finn), I for the sons of Ir and L for the lineage of Ith. O’Hart’s list is detailed here from Heremon to Niall of the Nine Hostages:

No.			BC
1.	H.	Heber and Heremon, jointly began to reign A.M. 3,500; or	1699
2.	E.	Hermon, alone,	1698
3.	E	Muimne )
4.	E.	Luighne ) Three Brothers	1683
5.	E.	Laighean)
6.	H.	Er )
7.	H.	Orba ) Four Brothers 1680
8.	H.	Feron )	1683
9.	H.	Fergna )
10.	E.	Irial Faidh	1680
11.	E.	Ethrail	1670
12.	H.	Conmaol	1650
13.	E.	Tighearnmas	1620
14.	L.	Eochaidh Edghothach	1543
15.	I.	Cearmna )
16.	I.	Sobhrach ) Two Brothers	1532
17.	H.	Eochaidh Faobhar Glas	1492
18.	E.	Fiacha Labhrainn	1472
19.	H.	Eochaidh Mumha	1448
20.	E.	Aeneas Olmucach	1427
21.	H.	Main	1409
22.	E.	Rothactach	1382
23.	I.	Sedna	1357
24.	I.	Fiacha Fionn Scothach	1352
25.	H.	Munmoin	1332
26.	H.	Fauldergoid	1327
27.	I.	Ollam Fodhla	1317
28.	I.	Finachta	1277
29.	I.	Slanoll	1257
30.	I.	Gead Ollghothach	1240
31.	I.	Fiachu	1228
32.	I.	Bergna	1208
33.	I.	Oilioll	1196
34.	E.	Siorna Saobach	1180
35.	H.	Rotheachta	1030
36.	H.	Eiliomh Ollhionach	1023
37.	E.	Gialchadh	1022
38.	H.	Art Imleach	1013
39.	E.	Nuadas Fionnfail	1001
40.	H.	Bres Rioghachta	961
41.	L.	Eochaidh Apach	952
42.	I.	Fionn NaMile	951
43.	H.	Seidnae Innaridh	929
44.	E.	Sioman Breac	909
45.	H.	Duach Fionn	903
46.	E.	Muredach Bolgrach	900
47.	H.	Eanna Dearg	892
48.	H.	Lughaidh Iardhonn	880
49.	I.	Siorlamh	871
50.	H.	Eochaidh	855
51.	E.	Eochaidh Framhuine	843
52.	H.	Lughaidh	838
53.	E.	Conang Beag-eaglach	831
54.	H.	Art	811
55.	E.	Fiacha Tolgrach	805
56.	H.	Olioll Fionn	795
57.	H.	Eochaidh	784
58.	I.	Argeadmar	777
59.	E.	Duach Ladhrach	747
60.	H.	Lughaidh	737
61.	I.	Aodh Ruadh	730
62.	I.	Dithorba	730
63.	I.	Cimbaeth	747
64.	I.	Macha Mongrua	737
65.	H.	Reachtaidh Righdhearg	730
66.	E.	Ughaine Mor	730
67.	E.	Bancadh	598
68.	E.	Laeghaire Lorc	593
69.	E.	Cobthatch Caol-bhreagh	591
70.	E.	Labhra Longseach	541
71.	E.	Melg Molbhthach	522
72.	H.	Mogh Corb	505
73.	E.	Aenas Ollamh	498
74.	E.	Iaran Gleofathach	480
75.	H.	Fear Corb	473
76.	E.	Conla Caomh	462
77.	E.	Olioll Cas-fiaclach	442
78.	H.	Adhamair Foltchaoin	417
79.	E.	Eochaidh Alt-Leathan	412
80.	E.	Fergus Fortamhail	397
81.	E.	AEneas Tuil'meach-Teamrach	384
82.	E.	Conall Collaimrach	324
83.	E.	Niadh Seaghamain	319
84.	E.	Enna Aigneach	312
85.	E.	Crimthann Cosrach	292
86.	E.	Ruadhraighe	288
87.	H.	Ionnadmhar	218
88.	I.	Breasal	209
89.	H.	Lughaidh Luaidhne	198
90.	I.	Congalius - Congal Claroineach	183
91.	H.	Duach Dallta Deaghaidh	168
92.	I.	Fachna Fathach	158
93.	E.	Eochaidh Feidlioch	142
94.	E.	Eochy Aireamh	130
95.	E.	Edersceal	115
96.	E.	Nuadas Necht	110
97.	E.	Conaire Mor	109
98.	E.	Lughaidh Sriabh-nDearg	34
99.	E.	Fionn File	8
100.	E.	Crimthann Niadh Nar	7BC
101.	-	Cairbre Cean-Cait FirBolg	9AD
102.	E.	Feredach Fionn-feachtnach Nar	14
103.	E.	Fiachu Findamnas	36
104.	E.	Fiacha Fionn Ola	39
105.	I.	Elim mac Conrach	56
106.	E.	Tuathal	76
107.	I.	Mal MacRochraidhe	106
108.	E.	Felim Rachtmar	110
109.	E.	Felim Fiorglass	119
110.	E.	Conn Ceadcathach of 100 Battles	123
111.	E.	Conaire Mac Mogha	157
112.	E.	Art Eanfhear	165
113.	L.	Lughaidh Maccon	195
114.	E.	Fergus Gallen	225
115.	E.	Cormac Mac Airt	226
116.	E.	Achaius Gunnatt	266
117.	E.	Cairbre-Lifeachar	267
118.	L.	Fothadh Cairpeach )	284
119.	L.	Fothadh Airgtheach )Brothers	284
120.	E.	Fiacha Srabhteine	285
121.	E.	Colla Uais	322
122.	E.	Muredeach Tireach	326
123.	I.	Caelbhadh	356
124.	E.	Eochaidh Muigh Mendhoin	357
125.	E.	Criomhthann	365
126.	E.	Niall Mor - Niall of the Nine Hostages	378
127.	E.	Dathi	405

Only when he saw the complete list did he realise what a large job it would be putting them into an order that made sense.

It was clear from the way they were listed that O'Hart had a lot of information from which to create the list - his book contained over 800 pages of supporting documents. O’Hart had concluded that it must be right, because he knew the texts from which it was obtained. It appears upon the face of it to be quite believable, unless you question how only one king ruled, when there were so many different provinces– all of which claimed to have kings.

This conundrum was dealt with by simply arranging the kings in the best order that you could and ignoring issues that might call it into doubt. This led to massive problems, because right slap bang in the middle of the list King number 34 named Siorgnath Saoghalach was listed as living 250 years, but reigning for 150years.

No-one in their right mind believed such a tale, but it was necessary to suspend belief for a moment in order to make them all gel into one believable list. It is therefore not surprising that historians have failed to understand what they were in fact looking at.

This information was however of immense value in terms of recreating the original structure of the NaMile Clan. O’Hart like Keating had found that the original Milesian clan was called the Clan-na Mile. He recorded it as follows in footnote 6 on page 50:

The Milesians invaded Ireland one hundred and ninety-seven years
later than the Tuatha de Danans;
and were called Clan-na-Mile [meel],
signifying the descendants of Milesius of Spain.

On page 56 he goes on to explain:

"..enchantments used by the Tuatha-de-Danans, to obstruct their landing; for, by their magic art, they enchanted the island so as to appear to the Milesians or Clan-na-Mile in the form of a Hog, and no way to come at it (whence the island, among the many other names it had before, was called Muc-Inis or " The Hog Island ")"

O’Hart used the Anglicised version, but the name was the same, as Keating had used. There is no doubt that the record shows that the Clan NaMile and the Milesians are one and the same.

He therefore understood the significance of the genealogies. It related to understanding the Clan mentality. In these ancient days Clan was everything. It was not just your birthright, your tribe, your people. It was the people whom you lived with, fought with, married and were buried by. Marriage out of Clan was not usual, unless organised between kings to cement relationships and your enemy was defined by which clan you belonged to and with whom you had allegiances.

In a society structured in this way there was only one way that kings could be understood to have ruled – they ruled by clan. The logical conclusion of that observation is that each son of the mythical Mile had a son which ruled a different part of Ireland, with their element of the original source clan.

This seemed to be confirmed to some extent by colloquial reporting of ancient Irish history. Now he also had a host of genealogies of the old Irish families. He could now reconstruct, with the use of the O’Hart material, and Keating a list of kings with their dating – thanks to the work of the Four Masters.

MYTHOLOGICAL CYCLE

It was important now to look at the mythological cycle of stories that circulated in Ireland through the host of internet web sites. His view was that he was currently researching pre-history – the part of history that historians considered unreliable. The truth about earlier history would never be known if all the available sources were not looked at.

DUACH THE DARK

One of the first pieces of information to come his way which seems to have a possible significance was found as result of visiting the Sacred texts web site www.sacred-texts.com. It describes itself as:

“the largest freely available archive of online books about religion, mythology, folklore and the esoteric on the Internet. The site is dedicated to religious tolerance and scholarship, and has the largest readership of any similar site on the web.”

It covers many subjects including the Celts and mythology. One particular document caught his eye by Lady Gregory, dated 1904 it was called Gods and Fighting Men. It claimed to be the story of the Tuathe De Danaan and the Fianna of Ireland. Such stories circulated as justification of the "Irish Struggle".

Like many of the myth stories it recites the events of the coming of the Tuatha. Indeed it refers to them in the first chapter as the men of Dea and follows the story of how Eochaid , Nuada, Sreng and Lugh are all involved in the invasion story. It tells of how Bres meets Sreng in a meet before the battle to discuss terms and find they both speak the same language and are of the same race.

This information must have come to Lady Gregory and have been included in her story. However he did not at that time know if it were true. Similarly the story continues and it can be seen that Nuada, Bres, Lugh (of the spear fame) and the Daghda are all on the side that won the battle.

As a side issue, but the one that he found significant, was an obscure reference to "Duach the Dark. Eochaidh, who lost the battle, was Duach’s son and Lugh had a foster mother who was called Taillte. That name he had seen in his research before and recognised it as one of the stories in Keating. Tailltin was also the mother of Lugh in a number of separate legends inferring an element of cross-referencing that he concluded made the claim have value.

The most important note however was that it was Duach Ladhrach, Monarch numbered 59 in the John O’Hart list, that was cross referenced as being the same Duach whom Hugh Mc Gough had identified as the last king of the Fir Bolg, as detailed in his exceedingly detailed chart on the web site Irish Kings –(www.magoo.com/hugh/irishkings.html).

That chart uses the old John O’Hart numbering system, but like all charts related to the Irish Kings, makes no attempt to explain the comment. He had been looking for clues as to when the Milesians may have ended their reign and this looked to him as good as you could get. He knew Duach Ladhratch was a Heremon line monarch because Duach was listed in all the old family genealogies who claimed a connection to Heremon. He also knew that the one after Duach was his son Eochaidh Buidh, but it was noticeable that his son was missing from the kings list. This was explained as being because Eochaidh was killed before his son could attain the throne.

He thought about this and yes it would be true. If the Milesians (rather than the Fir Bolgs) had been exiled at the death of Duach Ladhrach, and Duach’s son had been killed by the incoming invaders, then the son of Eochaidh would have been one of the exiles and never have taken the throne – or even been in a position to try. The statement that the father was killed before the son could attain the crown was thus true, but did not tell the whole story because it omitted to tell why. It appeared to confirm that his work was pointing him in the right direction.

His experience had shown him that one of the most valuable sources for historical research was the spoken record. It was common practice in the past for history to be recorded, not on paper, but by the spoken poems and words of poets and wise men/women. In Ireland this culture dominated even up to this day, in some of the more remote parts of Ireland. The Druid culture relied upon these songs and poems to be passed from father to son, generation after generation, without addition or subtraction of a single word.

In the case of the poem created by Wace in about 1150AD concerning the Battle of Hastings the poem was over 10,000 lines long. The art of remembering and passing this on has long since been lost in modern culture, but shows why those who research Irish history ignore this information at their peril. Previously discredited by historians as unreliable during the Victorian period Wace has now re-emerged as the foremost eminent source for information about the Battle of Hastings.

Many of these spoken stories involve people who actually lived in the prehistory period. Their exploits were recorded in verse and told to the Clan, as evening entertainment, around an open fire. The men who beat their enemies in battles became bigger by virtue of the courage and their deeds, more daring as time passed. It is not therefore surprising to find the names of ancient kings now recorded as gods of the ancient past, who carried spears the size of three men, or who became giants with miraculous properties that won them battles.

The information that these exploits brought, were however occasionally useful to his research project. Recorded on the Early Irish Tribal Origins web site by Kevin O’Keefe he found a summary of work done by DJConway in his book the Ancient and Shining Ones – information he would have been unlikely to find or notice himself.

This records how the mythical Formorians came to Ireland and after 300 years Partholon dies. Then came Nemed and after him colonizers from either Greece or Spain – following the traditional thinking of the time. Conway records these as being actually three tribes;

“

the men of the Domnu, Men of Gaillion and the men of Bolg.
They inter-married with the Fomors and held the country
until the arrival of the Tuatha De Danann”

He knew this could not be right because of the contradictions he had previously seen, but what took his attention and he didn’t expect to see this was the reference to three peoples. The men of the Domnu were the people from the source of the Danube. He understood the entomology as being the people of Dan – Dan being the source word for the Danube. These same people were called the De Danann in other manuscripts as they mixed up history. Others even sought to claim that the De Dananns were somehow the lost tribe of Dan – an Israelite tribe.

He recognized the flaw in this concept and saw that politics was playing the history game – trying to make the lost Israelite tribe from a name that had no logical connection to Israel other than the word Dan. However he was slightly unsettled by the fact that these people appeared to have a common ancestry. He assumed the answer to this issue would be provided in time.

The men of Bolg were the Fir Bolg – also possibly from the same area – Belgium being an area where the bag men probably came from. However the thing that he recognised from the early Irish Tribal origins book was the name "Gaillion" – that looked remarkably like the name of the place he was going to go in Asturias again, but another spelling of Guien – could these third people have somehow, in the mythical cycle, have had their place name recorded? This would remain to be seen – an interesting coincidence – more than one concerning this improbable name and he had learnt to pay attention to coincidences.

Further research of this matter confirmed that the men of Gaillion appears out of a creation myth called Domnu of the Deep, recorded by Celtic Myths and Legends author Charles Squire. He says:

“They appear in ancient, medieval and almost modern chronicles as the old race of Ireland”.

They appeared to have a base in Leinster and their symbol was the sign of the deer.

There is quite a lot of information which goes on:

“In the time of their domination they had, we are told, partitioned Ireland among them: the Fir Bolg held Ulster; the Fir Domnann, divided into three kingdoms, occupied North Munster, South Munster, and Connaught; while the Fir Gaillion owned Leinster. These five provinces met at a hill then called "Balor's Hill", but afterwards the "Hill of Uisnech". It is near Rathconrath, in the county of West Meath, and was believed, in early times, to mark the exact centre of Ireland. They held the country from the departure of the people of Nemed to the coming of the people of the goddess Danu, and during this period they had nine supreme kings. At the time of the arrival of the gods, their king's name was Eochaid 1 son of Erc, surnamed "The Proud".

So Eochaid the son of Erc was king at this time and the people who worshiped Danu were the people who removed Erc from power – all useful information in reassembling Irish chronology of kings –even if from a mythical source. The people of the Godess Danu were undoubtedly later called the Tuatha de Danann and came from the Danube area of Germany, which was at that time called Belgium.

He decided, having read most of the major works, that the next step was to seek to establish the veracity of his discovery that Mil was the royal king of the Clan NaMile – or Clanna Mileadh as recorded by Keating, and Clan-na-Mile as recorded by John O’Hart. He would take the chronology of the Kings of Ireland and put them into a list as both O’Hart and Keating had sought to do. Once in a list the dates would determine whether these people could be the offspring of King David or not. He knew when King David lived and he knew, thanks to the Four Masters (and Keating) how long each king reigned.

He had quite a lot of information that was common ground amongst the source documents. Often the names of the clan were not recorded, but the genealogy determined which clan each person would be found in, because marriage out of clan was unusual. He also knew that Duach was the last king of one of the dynasties – probably the Milesians. He knew that Eochaidh was the son of that king and he was replaced by Nuada. He knew that Lug was fostered by Eochaidhs mother.

He had the information concerning the divisions of Ireland from Keating and list upon list of names in genealogies. If the chronology fitted he had undeniable proof of the connection between the Irish Kings and King Milesius – history would be re-written. No he thought on that for a second – it would not be re-written, it would simply be confirmed. His job was not to re-write history but to confirm information that was already known.

THE KINGS OF IRELAND Continued…