The purpose of my suggestion to begin a "What every Celticist should know"
list was not to initiate another round of speculation on minutiae, but
rather to offer newcomers a good starting place for their Celtic Studies.
I agree with most of the suggested topical additions, and I suggest that one
of us gets bold enough to actually submit a list of books to begin the ball
However, I want to weigh in on this recent discussion about Bohemia and a
so-called "Celtic" gene. Either I misunderstand Celtic origins, or there is
some bad medical science being offered, BUT, there were no Celts 5500 years
ago. Not linguistically, not ethnically, not in any way that allows any
common definition to the label Celt. I don't know what this genetic marker
indicates, nor what its supposed presence proves, but Celts as a "people"
were simply not extant five and a half millennia ago. If people from the
present-day Czech republic have a genetic marker from that distant period,
then I would suggest that this proves they were not Celtic, but indigenous
pre-Celtic inhabitants of the region. Please correct my faulty logic, if
Paul E. Cullity
Department of History
Keene State College
Keene NH 03435-1301